Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 23:54:57 +0200 From: Max Laier <max@love2party.net> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au>, Ian FREISLICH <ianf@clue.co.za>, brooks@freebsd.org, Andrew Thompson <thompsa@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: CFT: new trunk(4) Message-ID: <200704122355.05846.max@love2party.net> In-Reply-To: <20070412210957.GA31864@heff.fud.org.nz> References: <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> <E1Hbs1M-000FWA-7Z@clue.co.za> <20070412210957.GA31864@heff.fud.org.nz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nextPart1946061.CzJAZvijG4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Thursday 12 April 2007 23:09, 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>=20 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. > > > > > > =3D2E.. > > > > > > >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! team(4) group(4) gang[bang](4) ;-) .. I'd prefer if we keep the name and a compatible interface as it=20 will allow to reuse documentation. =2D-=20 /"\ Best regards, | mlaier@freebsd.org \ / Max Laier | ICQ #67774661 X http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | mlaier@EFnet / \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News --nextPart1946061.CzJAZvijG4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBGHqq5XyyEoT62BG0RAp14AJ9MylShs9XxLksoKt+iwyrbRjP9zgCfYzYL pHEel1J1J1SUztYAFQ0i+KE= =1TjM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1946061.CzJAZvijG4--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200704122355.05846.max>