Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 11:29:32 +1200 From: Andrew Thompson <thompsa@freebsd.org> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: vlans and cloning Message-ID: <20060711232932.GB62353@heff.fud.org.nz> In-Reply-To: <20060711234931.P14749@fledge.watson.org> References: <44B15511.206@errno.com> <44B21551.5050002@freebsd.org> <20060710160441.GB31026@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <20060710202714.GC16054@heff.fud.org.nz> <20060711162953.GC20418@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <20060711234931.P14749@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 11:51:49PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote: > On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Brooks Davis wrote: > > >>>Unless cause ifconfig to autoload all if_ modules when cloning fails, > >>>it's impossiable to support this without having if_vlan loaded. That > >>>said the current plan it to eliminate if_vlan and integrate vlan support > >>>directly into if_ethersubr.c to allow use to correctly handle the > >>>default vlan case among otherthings. > >> > >>Is anyone working on this? The bridge code needs access to the vlan tag > >>to properly hash the address as each vlan is a seperate broadcast domain, > >>this would be much easier with vlan merged to if_ethersubr.c. > > > >I think it ended up with Robert's name on it at the last devsummit, but > >he's got a lot of higher priority stuff on his plate. It doesn't look > >like this change would be all that much work. The one thing that might be > >worth investigating is seeing if there's a sane way to make vlan tag > >parsing part of ether_input, but keep if_vlan.c around as a module for > >actual support of trunks so we get most of the architectural benefits of > >correctly treating vlan tags as part of the spec, but let embedded users > >who don't need trunks avoid the overhead. > > Yes -- the specific proposal I have made is that we combine if_vlan.c into > if_ethersubr.c, as well as LLC encapsulation decapsulation. Vlans and LLC > bits are all considered standard ethernet features today, and integrating > the basic support (regardless of virtual interfaces) into if_ethersubr.c > makes sense. It would also make the book keeping and event handling go a > bit more naturally, I think. I've not had a chance to prototype this to > explore what the above words actually mean, so I think some experimental > prototyping is called for. It's on my todo list but something I'm likely > not to get to for a few months, so if someone else wants to look into this, > I think that would be great. This is something I can start working on, all keep the interested parties informed. Andrew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060711232932.GB62353>