[Xorp-hackers] Doubt on VLAN implementation

[Suresh Kannan]

Hi Bruce & all,

interface foo {
vif vlan 10.200 {
}
}

Is the above syntax makes clear view for QinQ support ?.

Thanks,
Regards,
Suresh kannan.

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 2:00 AM, Bruce M Simpson <bms at incunabulum.net>
wrote:

> Pavlin Radoslavov wrote:
> > I have to admit that when comes to VLANs I am thinking the IEEE
> > 802.1Q Standard.
> > How the relationships you describe above fit with 802.1Q?
> > If you have an URL with detailed description that would be useful.
> >
>
> There are folk out there using multiple 802.1Q encapsulation headers,
> particularly for stuff like Metro Ethernet. It is sometimes called
> "Q-in-Q".
>
> The encapsulation thing was a requirement crunch when rethinking the
> FreeBSD ether_input() path this time last year -- and all I wanted to do
> was make 802.1p work with my VoIP ATA...
>
> I didn't see any reason to support more than 2 levels of encapsulation
> on the same link layer, however it's entirely possible people are doing
> more than 2.
>
> Having said that, I'd like to see how Q-in-Q is configured on vendor
> equipment before making any radical changes anywhere. For XORP,
> personally I prefer the interface foo0 { vif vlan10 { ... }  } style
> syntax, but how to capture Q-in-Q in that syntax is an open question.
>
> cheers
> BMS
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xorp-hackers mailing list
> Xorp-hackers at icir.org
> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/pipermail/xorp-hackers/attachments/20080325/2f8c940d/attachment.html