[Xorp-users] VLAN support in XORP

[Pavlin Radoslavov]

> > If the system doesn't allow you to have more than one VLANs with the
> > same name (even if they have different parent interfaces), then you
> > need to manually make sure that there is only one vlan10 in your
> > configuration. E.g., on FreeBSD you cannot have configuration like:
> > 
> > interfaces {
> >     interface fxp0 {
> >         vif vlan10 {
> >             vlan {
> >                 vlan-id: 10
> >             }
> >             address 10.10.10.10 {
> >                 prefix-length: 24
> >             }
> >         }
> >     }
> >     interface sk0 {
> >         vif vlan10 {
> >             vlan {
> >                 vlan-id: 10
> >             }
> >             address 10.44.44.44 {
> >                 prefix-length: 24
> >             }
> >         }
> >     }
> > }
> 
> 
> I think this makes it very difficult to use. Having to make sure that 
> the interface name is unique is a typical task for a computer, not a 
> human :)
> I'm seeing a configuration with hundreds of interfaces, it would be 
> unbearable.

How is it different from, say, using directly the UNIX tools to
create VLANs and making sure each one will have an unique name.

> >>> I.e., the "vlan {}" block inside the "vif {}" block is used to
> >>> identify the vif as a VLAN and to apply the VLAN-specific
> >>> configuration. For now the VLAN-specific configuration is only the
> >>> VLAN ID.
> >> Can't you put this thing under the main interface,
> >> like adding "vlan-tagging" or something?
> >> I don't want another two lines of configuration
> >> per sub-interface.
> > 
> > We could, but the reason I prefer to have an explicit "vlan {}"
> > block is for clarity. E.g., if we keep the above model, then in the
> > future all VLAN-specific parameters will go to that block rather
> > than cluttering everything together inside the generic "vif {}"
> > block.
> 
> I see your point.
> I'm just fond of "vlan-tagging" directly under vif since that is how 
> Junipers work.
> In the future I see adding support for inner and outer vlans (ie, QinQ), 
> VLAN rewriting and stuff. I'm not sure how much we should plan for now.
> A simple way would be to simply duplicate Junipers effort, I can imagine 
> they already put some thought into it and a lot of people are used to 
> how JUNOS works.

I see.
I am not strongly opposed against moving the stuff from the
"vlan {}" block to its parent "vif {}" block, so lets wait and see
if there are other alternative proposals.
After that we can decide whether we should do the change.

Thanks,
Pavlin