[Xorp-users] VLAN support in XORP

Pavlin Radoslavov pavlin at icir.org
Fri Sep 28 16:31:52 PDT 2007


Kristian Larsson <kristian at spritelink.net> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 11:26:54AM -0700, Pavlin Radoslavov wrote:
> > > 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'm seing this mostly from a Cisco / Juniper side
> of things where you don't have to keep track.
> The PC based routers I've dealt with have mostly
> been based on Linux and then again you don't have
> to deal with it since it's <interface>.<vid> :)

If we had complete control over the underlying system, then we will
have the freedom to choose whatever naming scheme we like and then
adjust the underlying system to support it.
In our case we need to consider the multi-platform support we try to
offer, and some of those systems don't even offer the option of
renaming the vlan interface name.

Well, there are alternatives like the following.
I am mentioning it not because it is my preference, but
just for completness:

interfaces {
    interface fxp0 {
        vlan 200 {
	    vif-name: "vlan200"
            address {
                ...
            }
        }
    }
}

where "200" is the VLAN ID and "vif-name" is optional.
But then if the users don't specify "vif-name", it becomes more
complicated to them because they need to figure out the vlan
interface name (as appears in the system), and need to use that name
in the rest of the XORP configuration like:

ospf4 {
    interface fxp0 {
        vif vlan200 {
            ...
        }
    }
}

>From all the discussion so far (including the long thread 2 years
ago), it doesn't seem there is a single solution everyone is happy
with so I think we need to draw the line somewhere and move on.

> > 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.
> 
> Yepp, and the mac vlan thing that Ben brings up is
> quite interesting as well, never used it but looks
> kinda cool :)
> The XORP solution should of course, if possible,
> cater for all possible uses.

I did some search re. macvlan and it seems interesting, but
according to Ben's Web site you need to patch your kernel to add the
support for it.
Hence, my personal preference (with the risk to offend Ben :) is to
wait until it becomes part of the Linux kernel before we add it to
our TODO list.

Thanks,
Pavlin

>   -K
> 
> -- 
> Kristian Larsson                                        KLL-RIPE
> Network Engineer & Peering Coordinator      SpriteLink [AS39525]
> +46 704 910401			              kll at spritelink.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xorp-users mailing list
> Xorp-users at xorp.org
> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-users



More information about the Xorp-users mailing list