[Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Xorp-hackers] Some thoughts

[Kristian Larsson]

On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 10:51:19PM +0000, Mark Handley wrote:
> On 11/8/05, Mike Horn <caddisconsulting@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I too would prefer using a numbering convention for sub-interfaces (e.g.
> > fxp1.1, fxp1.2, etc.) if this is feasible.
> 
> I don't really think it is, for the reasons I've listed in previous
> mail.   I agree it would be nicer from a user point of view, but it
> would be a developer nightmare.
why? ;)

Say we do it like this.
XORP first has to recognize and differ between the
systems. Linux and FreeBSD with the new naming
scheme would go under one category while system
with vlan naming that has no link to it's physical
interface, ie old FreeBSD, NetBSD?, OpenBSD? and
some others perhaps is in another category.
For the linux category it's not too hard just
creating the correct interfaces. 

For the old FreeBSD category, when adding a new
vlan xorp will simply ask the system for a new
vlan interface. It receives the next available and
configures it. In addition to this it also stores
it in the configuration file.

interfaces {
  interface fxp0 {
    vif 0 {
      use-interface: fxp0;
    }
    vif 5 {
      use-interface: vlan0;
    }
    vif 6 {
      use-interface: vlan1;
    }
  }
  interface fxp1 {
    vif 0 {
      use-interface: fxp0;
    }
    vif 1 {
      use-interface: vlan2;
    }
    vif 3 {
      use-interface: vlan3;
    }
  }
}
   
ie, the "use-interface" part would be
automatically generated.
Is this really so hard to implement?

Linux and freebsd with similar naming scheme
should work with the configuration described in
earlier emails.

   Kristian.