From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Tue Apr 5 07:59:40 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 469E6B03E3C for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 07:59:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from matt.churchyard@userve.net) Received: from smtp-outbound.userve.net (smtp-outbound.userve.net [217.196.1.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.userve.net", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BED89181D; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 07:59:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from matt.churchyard@userve.net) Received: from owa.usd-group.com (owa.usd-group.com [217.196.1.2]) by smtp-outbound.userve.net (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTPS id u357xVKY052662 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 5 Apr 2016 08:59:32 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from matt.churchyard@userve.net) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=userve.net; s=201508; t=1459843173; bh=EkT4aaVHLO1ZXJipKyYlcVjZossxF30YtMET8egypeo=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To; b=PKbCovfHWtEor3kf6ZLbJm8TfEHgYMQNoSRcsi2+hczacWqOqdTw+zw/smsInBChd sKmhCs3LK+yvtFTi9yOnSQjfpEoek8xqHx6rusy0vAA0Q5IqmVHLFtzrEczB/4HUqy p6/VpsfYOkUJpAFzzMvqOaFf1X23iWM1Yem6aR2g= Received: from SERVER.ad.usd-group.com (192.168.0.1) by SERVER.ad.usd-group.com (192.168.0.1) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.32; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 08:59:26 +0100 Received: from SERVER.ad.usd-group.com ([fe80::b19d:892a:6fc7:1c9]) by SERVER.ad.usd-group.com ([fe80::b19d:892a:6fc7:1c9%12]) with mapi id 15.00.0847.030; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 08:59:25 +0100 From: Matt Churchyard To: Brooks Davis CC: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" Subject: RE: Vale port naming Thread-Topic: Vale port naming Thread-Index: AdGOZNYH6mnDR8loS6WdExmWBJs6MwAVWU8AAAAQ14AAFYqdEA== Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 07:59:24 +0000 Message-ID: <22d076ee848941ffaa6769019d278bbb@SERVER.ad.usd-group.com> References: <20160404223748.GA25187@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net> <20160404223941.GB25187@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net> In-Reply-To: <20160404223941.GB25187@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.0.10] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2016 07:59:40 -0000 > On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 10:37:48PM +0000, Brooks Davis wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 11:29:31AM +0000, Matt Churchyard via freebsd-n= et wrote: > > > From the little information I can find on the net it seems that valeX= :Y is the format for a port on a vale switch. > > > Some examples use vale0:1, others use a letter such as valeA:0. The o= nly details I can find is a vague reference to a 15/16? character limit, > > > although I don't know whether that applies to just the first part of= the whole thing. > >=20 > > Can anyone clarify the valid format for a vale switch/port? > > Is there any length or character restriction on X & Y? >=20 > According to the vale.4 manpage: >=20 > vale ports are named vale[bdg:][port] where vale is the prefix > indicating a VALE switch rather than a standard interface, bdg > indicates a specific switch (the colon is a separator), and port > indicates a port within the switch. Bridge and port names are > arbitrary strings, the only constraint being that the full name > must fit within 16 characters. >=20 > The manpage is confusing in that the name must be 15 characters plus=20 > the NUL character. Given the other limits, it looks like bdg can be=20 > up to 8 characters in practice. > Having hit send, I've noticed I'm wrong here. :) In fact, you have 10 c= haracters to split betwen bdg and port. > -- Brooks Ok, so I can assume using port names like "vale9d9af:66aa9" isn't the reaso= n that my test machine is panicing. I might give 10.3 a go instead of head and see how I get on with that. Matt