From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Florian Fainelli Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/5] net: L2 only interfaces Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:23:57 -0700 Message-ID: <55DCF90D.6030703@gmail.com> References: <1440543015-14693-1-git-send-email-f.fainelli@gmail.com> <20150825162433.41c111d6@urahara> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, andrew@lunn.ch, linux@roeck-us.net, jiri@resnulli.us, sfeldma@gmail.com To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f43.google.com ([209.85.220.43]:35328 "EHLO mail-pa0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751732AbbHYX0Y (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Aug 2015 19:26:24 -0400 Received: by pacdd16 with SMTP id dd16so138772119pac.2 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:26:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150825162433.41c111d6@urahara> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 25/08/15 16:24, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 15:50:10 -0700 > Florian Fainelli wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> This patch series implements a L2 only interface concept which basically denies >> any kind of IP address configuration on these interfaces, but still allows them >> to be used as configuration end-points to keep using ethtool and friends. >> >> A cleaner approach might be to finally come up with the concept of net_port >> which a net_device would be a superset of, but this still raises tons of >> questions as to whether we should be modifying userland tools to be able to >> configure/query these interfaces. During all the switch talks/discussions last >> year, it seemed to me like th L2-only interface is closest we have to a >> "network port". >> >> Comments, flames, flying tomatoes welcome! >> >> Florian Fainelli (5): >> net: add IFF_L2_ONLY flag >> net: ipv4: Skip in_dev initialization for IFF_L2_ONLY interfaces >> net: ipv6: Skip in6_dev initialization for IFF_L2_ONLY interfaces >> net: dsa: Flag slave network devices with IFF_L2_ONLY >> net: dsa: bcm_sf2: Allow disabling tagging protocol >> >> drivers/net/dsa/bcm_sf2.c | 16 +++++++++++++--- >> include/uapi/linux/if.h | 5 ++++- >> net/dsa/slave.c | 1 + >> net/ipv4/devinet.c | 3 +++ >> net/ipv6/addrconf.c | 4 ++++ >> 5 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> > > Can you bridge these? You can add such an interface to the bridge, but I am still figuring out how functional such a bridge is, because with my change to bcm_sf2, there is no switch tag inserted, so I cannot differentiate a BPDU from Port 0, 1 etc... probably of limited use. You could still configure VLANs using bridge vlan filtering though, which was the main idea. -- Florian