Re: CFT: new trunk(4)

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Lars Erik Gullerud wrote:

Hi,

> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, Shteryana Shopova wrote:
>
>> LACP == Link Aggregation Control Protocol - dynamic trunking - one of
>> the modes trunk(4) supports. And it's Cisco vs the rest of the world
>> where Cisco calls a trunk multiple VLANs over single physical
>> interface and the rest of the world calls a trunk multiple physical
>> interafces bundled together. We don't have to necessarily agree with
>> Cisco. Please keep the current name.

You have been assimilated;-)


> I beg to differ. The terms "trunk" and "trunk-style link" are used throughout 
> IEEE 802.1Q-2005 in examples and illustrations to demonstrate the concept of 
> carrying multiple tagged vlans over a single link, as opposed to an 
> "access-style link" carrying a single untagged vlan.
...

That, and in addition, I think, 802.3 (section 3) does not talk about
'trunk' at all.


> I'd tend to prefer bond(4) so Linux users will feel familiar, although 
> aggr(4) would be equally good.

I have seen the p4 submits and while I am not worrying about another
OpenBSD vs. Linux (vs. FreeBSD) bikeshed, what really worries me is
substituting one non-standard name for another.


It is called "Link Aggregation" in the IEEE standards, so why would we
want to call it 'bond'? The term "bonding" is not used in 802.3
(section 3) either (when related to link aggregation).

So if we are about to rename trunk(4) we should do the right thing
and use something short for "link aggregation" like aggr, laggr (my
prefered version), linkag, linkaggr or similar.


Just my 0.002ct.

/bz

-- 
Bjoern A. Zeeb				bzeeb at Zabbadoz dot NeT