lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Jan]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 01:29:51PM -0500, jamal wrote:
    >
    >
    > On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Ben Greear wrote:
    >
    > > > My thought was to have the vlan be attached on the interface ifa list and
    > > > just give it a different label since it is a "virtual interface" on top
    > > > of the "physical interface". Now that you mention the SNMP requirement,
    > > > maybe an idea of major:minor ifindex makes sense. Say make the ifindex
    > > > a u32 with major 16 bit and minor 16 bit. This way we can have upto 2^16
    > > > physical interfaces and upto 2^16 virtual interfaces on the physical
    > > > interface. The search will be broken into two 16 bits.
    > >
    > > What problem does this fix?
    > >
    > > If you are mucking with the ifindex, you may be affecting many places
    > > in the rest of the kernel, as well as user-space programs which use
    > > ifindex to bind to raw devices.
    > >
    >
    > I am talking about 2.5 possibilities now that 2.4 is out. I think
    > "parasitic/virtual" interfaces is not a issue specific to VLANs.
    > VLANs happen to use devices today to solve the problem.
    > As pointed by that example no routing daemons are doing aliased
    > interfaces (which are also virtual interfaces).
    > We need some more general solution.
    >

    And what about bonding device? What major number should they use?

    Ifindexes not reusable so in your scheme we should have separate minor
    counter for each major interface, what for?

    --
    Gleb.
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:52    [W:0.022 / U:59.548 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site