[systemd-devel] [PATCH] Add FDB support

Rauta, Alin alin.rauta at intel.com
Fri Dec 12 08:54:06 PST 2014

For now I'm concerned with the FDB entries. 
They are in the .network files following the logic of [Address] & [Route] sections.

-----Original Message-----
From: systemd-devel [mailto:systemd-devel-bounces at lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf Of "J├│hann B. Gu├░mundsson"
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 4:41 PM
To: systemd-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] Add FDB support

On 12/12/2014 04:12 PM, Rauta, Alin wrote:
> Hi,
> [BrigdeFDB] can be also fine. It's just that [BridgeFDB] makes you think at the entire forwarding database table and you are actually defining only one entry.
> [BridgeFDBEntry] makes you think at just one entry in that table.


So it can grow quite large with multiple entries along with all the other bridging features.

At this point in time I'm actually wondering if it would not be better to introduce type .bridge networkd file to cover all current and future bridge features ( for example you probably want to be able to define that 802.1ad tag in an [Bridge] section as well right? )  as opposed to be cluttering the .network file with all of those options.

Do you have any number of how many various type bridge entries will need to be supported by networkd in the long run?

systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel at lists.freedesktop.org

More information about the systemd-devel mailing list