Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 00:20:17 +0300 From: Niki Denev <ndenev@totalterror.net> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CFT: new trunk(4) Message-ID: <461EA291.5000403@totalterror.net> In-Reply-To: <20070412210957.GA31864@heff.fud.org.nz> References: <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> <20070411191450.GE815@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <E1Hbs1M-000FWA-7Z@clue.co.za> <20070412210957.GA31864@heff.fud.org.nz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 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@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! > > > Andrew One vote for agr(4) :) Niki -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGHqKRHNAJ/fLbfrkRAl/MAKCuFekfn3cn/UXRlylBsNDiUTijQACfct/M abfGQm1x9Uc6LdobSTifJe8= =S6pO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?461EA291.5000403>