On 9/2/25 6:33 PM, Florian Westphal wrote:
Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
+----br0----+
| |
veth0_a------------veth0 veth1--------veth1_b
(192.168.10.10/24) (192.168.10.20/24)
Using the MAC of the port, the packet is consumed by the bridge too and not
forwarded. So, no need for it to be the MAC address of the bridge itself..
Thanks for confirming.
But this is going to be a bit strange from usability point of view?
It is easier to explain to users that by setting the br0 mac address
(as we do now) packets are passed up to the local stack.
Fair point.
So lets just go with this patch set, forget I said anything :-)
Fernando, if you have some cycles, would you make a packetpath shell test
for this to exercise the datapath?
Sure, I can do it. I will create a new test on selftests covering this.
Should I send a v2 series including the new commit or just send an
independent series with the selftest changes?
Thanks,
Fernando.
Thanks!
