Re: Simplify bridge(4)

[Robert Swindells <rjs%fdy2.co.uk@localhost>]

Roy Marples wrote:
>On 12/02/2016 12:35, Robert Swindells wrote:
>> Ryota Ozaki wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:17 AM, Mouse <mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost> wrote:
>>>>> [J]ust wondering if we are going to see vether(4) anytime soon.
>>>>
>>>> How would this vether differ from the existing tap?  Presumably I'm
>>>> just missing something....
>>>
>>> dhcpcd didn't work well with bridge(4) and tap(4) didn't help that.
>>> vether(4) would help that. We may be able to address the issue by
>>> fixing bridge or tap but I have no idea for now.
>> 
>> I have a theory for why this happens.
>> 
>> I have a local change to bridge(4) in my tree that explicitly adds the
>> MAC address for each member interface rather than adding it lazily the
>> first time it is seen in a packet.
>
>Does it handle the MAC address changing on a member interface?

I haven't removed any code, the new MAC address will get added lazily
in the same way it would be at present.

It just seems worthwhile to explicitly add the MAC addresses that you
know about, particularly when broadcast addresses may be used.

Robert Swindells