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

[Mike Horn]

Hi Kristian,

Your example assumes that XORP creates a user defined interface name space
(e.g. vif 10), which I'm not sure has been agreed upon.  The example you
listed would more preferrable (for me at least) than:

interface eth0 {
  vlan-tagging: true;
  vif vlan0 {
  }
}

-mike

-----Original Message-----
From: xorp-hackers-admin@icir.org [mailto:xorp-hackers-admin@icir.org] On
Behalf Of 'Kristian Larsson'
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 12:24 PM
To: Mike Horn
Cc: xorp-hackers@xorp.org
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Xorp-hackers] Some
thoughts

Well, yes and no.
If you're inside xorp all the time you don't have to mess with the names.
You can align the names within xorp.

interface fxp0 {
  vlan-tagging: true;
  vif 10 {
  }
  vif 20 {
  }
}

would represent what you have below.
On old FreeBSDs or other OSs you can't align them anyhow since you might
have several vlan interfaces with the same tag though on different physical
interfaces.

And on Linux and newer FBSDs we would
automatically align them.

   Kristian.
   
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 07:39:52AM -0700, Mike Horn wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Another potential drawback of auto generating interface names or 
> numbers is that the user can't create their own logical mappings.  For 
> instance I usually align sub-interface number and vlan-tag, 
> sub-interface and FR PVC, etc.  For example, on a Juniper you can define.
> 
> fe-0/0/3 {
>     vlan-tagging;
>     unit 10 {
>         vlan-id 10;
>     }
>     unit 20 {
>         vlan-id 20;
>     }
> }
> 
> This helps make the troubleshooting process easier since you know 
> fe-0/0/3.20 uses VLAN 20.
> 
> -mike
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xorp-hackers-admin@icir.org [mailto:xorp-hackers-admin@icir.org] 
> On Behalf Of Mark Handley
> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 2:53 AM
> To: Kristian Larsson; Mark Handley; xorp-hackers@xorp.org
> Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Xorp-hackers] Some thoughts
> 
> On 11/9/05, Kristian Larsson <kristian@juniks.net> wrote:
> 
> > ie, the "use-interface" part would be automatically generated.
> > Is this really so hard to implement?
> 
> The problem is how do you automatically generate this?  The FEA could 
> do this, but the rtrmgr has no inbuild knowledge of the FEA or of 
> interfaces, so it can't generate this information.  Currently there's 
> no way for the rtrmgr to dynamically update a running config from the 
> running processes - the model is that the running config is what the
> user said it was.   The rtrmgr that would need to use this information
> to configure routing protocols, so it would need to know.
> 
>  - Mark
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xorp-hackers mailing list
> Xorp-hackers@icir.org
> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
Xorp-hackers mailing list
Xorp-hackers@icir.org
http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers