Messages in this thread |  | | From | Gleb Natapov <> | Date | Sun, 7 Jan 2001 20:51:13 +0200 |
| |
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/
|  |