Re: RFC: ported NetBSD if_bridge

If memory serves me right, Andrew Thompson wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 08:55:49AM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 03:57:58PM +1200, Andrew Thompson wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I have ported over the bridging code from NetBSD and am looking for feedb
> ack.
> > > My main question is, 'do people want this in the tree?'
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The benefits over the current bridge are:
> > >  * ability to manage the bridge table
> > >  * spanning tree support
> > >  * the snazzy brconfig utility
> > >  * clonable pseudo-interface (is that a benefit?)
> > > 
> > What advantages does it offer compared to the ng_bridge(4) functionality?
> > 
> 
> I didnt know about that one, I guess the main advantage is that all three
> *BSDs would have the same code and interface. While I imported it from NetBSD
> ,
> it originated in OpenBSD. Thats assuming anyone cares about that sort of
> thing.

1.  ng_bridge(4) doesn't do spanning tree.  Neither does bridge(4).

2.  A problem that I saw was that ng_bridge(4) didn't interact very well
with IPFilter...specifically, I recall that IPFilter rules had no effect
on bridged packets.  This was a problem when I was trying to add
filtered bridging to m0n0wall...the maintainer and I eventually switched
to using bridge(4)-style bridging after resolving a few other problems.

Don't know how important those are in the grand scheme of things, but 
those are a couple of real, functional differences.

Cheers,

Bruce.