[Xorp-hackers] VLAN support

Pavlin Radoslavov pavlin at icir.org
Wed Sep 26 01:10:46 PDT 2007


Kristian Larsson <kristian at spritelink.net> wrote:

> Pavlin Radoslavov wrote:
> > <kristian at spritelink.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:30:15 -0700, Pavlin Radoslavov <pavlin at icir.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Kristian Larsson <kristian at spritelink.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hello everyone :)
> >>>>
> >>>> I've seen a few CVS commits recently relating to VLAN configuration. I
> >>>> would like to know what the current status is of the interface naming
> >>>> scheme. The current standard has been questioned on several occasions
> >>>> and I would like to see that the project reaches some form of consensus
> >>>> on this before just implementing things.
> >>>>
> >>>> I read through an old thread with the subject 'Some thoughts' which
> >>>> Hasso started. What is your view on those ideas?
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you currently have in mind a naming scheme for VLAN and other
> >>>> "sub-interfaces"?
> >>> The VLAN changes are to the backend and they follow the existing
> >>> interface/vif scheme: the VLAN is a vif to the parent interface.
> >>> Nothing has been changed in the user front-end.
> >> I understand that nothing has been changed so far, what I'm interested in
> >> is if it will be.
> >> And I'm not certain how VLANs fit in under the current naming scheme, since
> >> it's not currently implemented...
> >> Under linux a vlan interface by default is named <interface>.<vlan id> and
> >> under FreeBSD a vlan is named vlan<sequence number>, where the sequence
> >> number has no correlation to the vlan id. Is XORP supposed to somehow
> >> follow this?
> >> interface eth0 {
> >>           vif eth0.123 {
> >>           }
> >> }
> >> or on freebsd
> >> interface fxp0 {
> >>           vid vlan2 {
> >>           }
> >> }
> >> ??
> >> How do I know the tag which is used on FreeBSD?
> >> Could you please provide a few examples of how it may look ? :)
> > 
> > No, until the implementation is completed :)
> 
> If you go ahead and implement, which of course is nothing I object to - 
> I would love VLAN support in XORP, I think the discussion will be raised 
> on how the naming scheme should look and there is a slight risk that 
> someone will have to re-implement and change things due to that we reach 
> concensus on some other solution than what is currently on roadmap.
> I'm having difficult understanding just why you can't provide me with an 
> example of what you have in mind? Is it a secret? ;)

Kristian,

Nothing is secret, it is just question of choosing the right time
for such discussion. For example, I wanted to understand first the
details of the VLAN creation API on both BSD and Linux because it
has impact on the interface naming.
Anyway, I just committed the first-cut implementation, and I will
start new thread on the subject on xorp-users ML for input what the
final configuration scheme should look like.
There I will address your question about the naming on FreeBSD and
Linux.

Regards,
Pavlin

P.S. BTW, I read the old "Some thoughts" thread. The thread is very
long and there were a number of ideas what the VLAN setup should
look like, but at the end I didn't see any consensus.

>   -K
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xorp-hackers mailing list
> Xorp-hackers at icir.org
> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers



More information about the Xorp-hackers mailing list