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 > > Any suggestions! lacp(4)++ -- AndreReceived on Fri Apr 13 2007 - 14:49:30 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:08 UTC