Re: CFT: new trunk(4)

From: Christian Brueffer <brueffer_at_FreeBSD.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 16:24:16 +0200
On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 09:09:58AM +1200, Andrew Thompson wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 07:39:00AM +0200, Ian FREISLICH wrote:
> > Peter Jeremy wrote:
> > > On 2007-Apr-11 15:43:04 +0200, Ian FREISLICH <ianf_at_clue.co.za> wrote:
> > > >Andrew Thompson wrote:
> > > >> On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 11:17:29AM +0200, Ian FREISLICH wrote:
> > > >> > We're making extensive use of vlans to increase the number of
> > > >> > interfaces availabble to us using switches to break out gigE into
> > > >> > 100M interfaces.  The bandwidth problem we're having is to our
> > > >> > provider, a 100M connection, and we're looking at doing exactly
> > > >> > this.  However, it appears that this interface can't trunk vlan
> > > >> > interfaces.
> > > =2E..
> > > >No, I'm sure I want it the way I said.  I know it sounds wrong, but
> > > >I just don't have enough PCI-X slots to waste 2 on physical 100M
> > > >NICs for the uplink from the routers.
> > > 
> > > Trunking is a way of combining multiple physical interfaces to increase
> > > the bandwidth.  Trunking multiple VLANs on a single interface doesn't
> > > make sense to me.
> > 
> > 802.1q is VLAN tagging and trunking.  This interface is LACP - link
> > aggregation.  I really think that it makes no sense to be able to
> > aggregate some ethernet interfaces and not others.  I suppose some
> > pedant will tell me vlan interfaces are not ethernet.
> 
> I think the unfortunate name of trunk(4) that we inherited from OpenBSD
> is causing quite some confusion.  trunk(4) actually has nothing to do
> with vlan trunking which I think you are after.
> 
> I can see this topic coming up again so it could save some time to
> rename the driver now. It would mean that we lose the naming link to the
> same driver in OpenBSD but you cant win em all.
> 
> Some names that have been suggested are:
> 
> linkag(4)
> agr(4)
> bond(4)   <- same as linux
> 

agr(4) as I understand it sounds very restrictive to me considering the
different modes trunk(4) supports.  I'd prefer bond(4) (also a great
opportunaty to add some 007 jokes to the manpage :-P).

- Christian

-- 
Christian Brueffer	chris_at_unixpages.org	brueffer_at_FreeBSD.org
GPG Key:	 http://people.freebsd.org/~brueffer/brueffer.key.asc
GPG Fingerprint: A5C8 2099 19FF AACA F41B  B29B 6C76 178C A0ED 982D

Received on Fri Apr 13 2007 - 12:40:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:08 UTC