Re: [net-next,rfc] net: bridge: mdb: Extend with multicast LLADDR

[Allan W. Nielsen]

The 08/02/2019 17:16, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> On 02/08/2019 17:07, Allan W. Nielsen wrote:
> > The 08/01/2019 17:07, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> >>> To create a group for two of the front ports the following entries can
> >>> be added:
> >>> bridge mdb add dev br0 port eth0 grp 01:00:00:00:00:04 permanent vid 1
> >>> bridge mdb add dev br0 port eth1 grp 01:00:00:00:00:04 permanent vid 1
> >>>
> >>> Now the entries will be display as following:
> >>> dev br0 port eth0 grp 01:00:00:00:00:04 permanent offload vid 1
> >>> dev br0 port eth1 grp 01:00:00:00:00:04 permanent offload vid 1
> >>>
> >>> This requires changes to iproute2 as well, see the follogin patch for that.
> >>>
> >>> Now if frame with dmac '01:00:00:00:00:04' will arrive at one of the front
> >>> ports. If we have HW offload support, then the frame will be forwarded by
> >>> the switch, and need not to go to the CPU. In a pure SW world, the frame is
> >>> forwarded by the SW bridge, which will flooded it only the ports which are
> >>> part of the group.
> >>>
> >>> So far so good. This is an important part of the problem we wanted to solve.
> >>>
> >>> But, there is one drawback of this approach. If you want to add two of the
> >>> front ports and br0 to receive the frame then I can't see a way of doing it
> >>> with the bridge mdb command. To do that it requireds many more changes to
> >>> the existing code.
> >>>
> >>> Example:
> >>> bridge mdb add dev br0 port eth0 grp 01:00:00:00:00:04 permanent vid 1
> >>> bridge mdb add dev br0 port eth1 grp 01:00:00:00:00:04 permanent vid 1
> >>> bridge mdb add dev br0 port br0 grp 01:00:00:00:00:04 permanent vid 1 // This looks wrong.
> >>>
> >>> We believe we come a long way by re-using the facilities in MDB (thanks for
> >>> convincing us in doing this), but we are still not completely happy with
> >>> the result.
> >> Just add self argument for the bridge mdb command, no need to specify it twice.
> > Like this:
> > bridge mdb add dev br0 port eth1 grp 01:00:00:00:00:04 permanent vid self
> 
> What ?! No, that is not what I meant.
> bridge mdb add dev br0 grp 01:00:00:00:00:04 permanent vid self
> bridge mdb del dev br0 grp 01:00:00:00:00:04 permanent vid self
> 
> Similar to fdb. You don't need no-self..
> I don't mind a different approach, this was just a suggestion. But please
> without "no-self" :)

Good, then we are in sync on that one :-D

> > 
> > Then if I want to remove br0 rom the group, should I then have a no-self, and
> > then it becomes even more strange what to write in the port.
> > 
> > bridge mdb add dev br0 port ?? grp 01:00:00:00:00:04 permanent vid no-self
> >                             ^^
> > And, what if it is a group with only br0 (the traffic should go to br0 and
> > not any of the slave interfaces)?
> > 
> > Also, the 'self' keyword has different meanings in the 'bridge vlan' and the
> > 'bridge fdb' commands where it refres to if the offload rule should be install
> > in HW - or only in the SW bridge.
> 
> No, it shouldn't. Self means act on the device, in this case act on the bridge,
> otherwise master is assumed.
> 
> > 
> > The proposed does not look pretty bad, but at least it will be possible to
> > configured the different scenarios:
> > 
> > bridge mdb add dev br0 port br0 grp 01:00:00:00:00:04 permanent vid 1
> > bridge mdb del dev br0 port br0 grp 01:00:00:00:00:04 permanent vid 1
> > 
> 
> That works too, but the "port" part is redundant.
> 
> > The more I look at the "bridge mdb { add | del } dev DEV port PORT" command, the
> > less I understand why do we have both 'dev' and 'port'? The implementation will
> > only allow this if 'port' has become enslaved to the switch represented by
> > 'dev'. Anyway, what is done is done, and we need to stay backwards compatible,
> > but we could make it optional, and then it looks a bit less strange to allow the
> > port to specify a br0.
> > 
> > Like this:
> > 
> > bridge mdb { add | del } [dev DEV] port PORT grp GROUP [ permanent | temp ] [ vid VID ]
> > 
> > bridge mdb add port eth0 grp 01:00:00:00:00:04 permanent vid 1
> > bridge mdb add port eth1 grp 01:00:00:00:00:04 permanent vid 1
> > bridge mdb add port br0  grp 01:00:00:00:00:04 permanent vid 1 // Add br0 to the gruop
> > bridge mdb del port br0  grp 01:00:00:00:00:04 permanent vid 1 // Delete it again
> > 
> 
> br0 is not a port, thus the "self" or just dev or whatever you choose..
Ahh, now I understand what you meant.

> > Alternative we could also make the port optional:
> > 
> > bridge mdb { add | del } dev DEV [port PORT] grp GROUP [ permanent | temp ] [ vid VID ]
> > 
> > bridge mdb add dev br0 port eth0 grp 01:00:00:00:00:04 permanent vid 1
> > bridge mdb add dev br0 port eth1 grp 01:00:00:00:00:04 permanent vid 1
> > bridge mdb add dev br0           grp 01:00:00:00:00:04 permanent vid 1 // Add br0 to the gruop
> > bridge mdb del dev br0           grp 01:00:00:00:00:04 permanent vid 1 // Delete it again
> > 
> 
> Right. I read this one later. :)
> 
> > Any preferences?
> Not really, up to you. Any of the above seem fine to me.
Perfect, I like this one the most:

bridge mdb { add | del } dev DEV [ port PORT ] grp GROUP [ permanent | temp ] [ vid VID ]

bridge mdb add dev br0 port eth0 grp 01:00:00:00:00:04 permanent vid 1
bridge mdb add dev br0 port eth1 grp 01:00:00:00:00:04 permanent vid 1
bridge mdb add dev br0           grp 01:00:00:00:00:04 permanent vid 1 // Add br0 to the gruop
bridge mdb del dev br0           grp 01:00:00:00:00:04 permanent vid 1 // Delete it again

/Allan