Re: CFT: new trunk(4)

On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 07:32:58AM +0000, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Lars Erik Gullerud wrote:
> >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).

I think this is a very good point.

> 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.

Well nothings committed yet. laggr is good, linkag rolls off the tounge
better :)


Andrew