[Ns-bugs] [Bug 114] global routing doesn't handle multi-hop layer-2 subnets

[code@nsnam.ece.gatech.edu]

http://www.nsnam.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114





--- Comment #8 from Craig Dowell <craigdo at ee.washington.edu>  2008-11-22 22:08:47 EDT ---
> In my experience, bridges do not have IP addresses, but if they do, they are
> assigned an IP address on the virtual bridge interface (not on the ports
> themselves) and this is just used for management such as getting SNMP data 
> out of the bridge; i.e. the bridge is not an IP forwarding device.

This code only expects IP addresses on the bridge net device interfaces.  The
bridge ports themselves are expected *not* to have IP addresses.  This allows a
host to bridge some of its interfaces together without needing a separate
bridge node.

> I would be inclined to disallow the above ProcessBridgedBroadcastLink and
> perhaps to even sanity check that people are not assigning Ipv4Interfaces to
> non-virtual devices that are in bridge groups (although I think the latter
> will be hard to implement and it may be a job of the global routing code 
> to detect and avoid this).  It makes it less flexible but perhaps less 
> prone to confusion or configuration error.  Other opinions?

It would be good to try and detect bridge ports that have IP addresses since
they are expected not to have them.  I don't really care if you want to
disallow bridges on nodes with internet stacks.  It seems convenient, and BTW,
Mircosoft OSes allow it.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.nsnam.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.