Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 09:34:13 -0700 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Donatas <donatas@lrtc.net> Subject: Re: double tagged vlans on 6.0 Message-ID: <20051007163413.GC12691@odin.ac.hmc.edu> In-Reply-To: <200510071456.j97EuWFK015056@lurza.secnetix.de> References: <006101c5cb48$d3126890$9f90a8c0@donatas> <200510071456.j97EuWFK015056@lurza.secnetix.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--WfZ7S8PLGjBY9Voh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 04:56:32PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote: > [broken quoting fixed] >=20 > Donatas <donatas@lrtc.net> wrote: > > Oliver Fromme wrote: > > > Donatas <donatas@lrtc.net> wrote: > > > > Just wonder - what is the major reason double vlan support > > > > (also known as q-in-q or nested vlan) is still not included > > > > in freebsd. > > >=20 > > > It is supported, for years already (even in FreeBSD 4.x). > > > See ng_vlan(4). You can even do q-in-q-in-q if you want > > > (do Cisco etc. support that?). ;-) > >=20 > > netgraph sweet netgraph... > >=20 > > think you understand on my mind was a liitle bit different > > solution of the problem :] > >=20 > > ifconfig vlan 10 create && ifconfig vlan10 vlan 10 vlandev fxp0 > > ifconfig vlan 111 create && ifconfig vlan111 vlan 111vlandev vlan10 >=20 > Well, then you should switch your mind to the solution > using netgraph. ;-) >=20 > Anyway -- You asked "what is the major reason double vlan > support is still not included", and the answer simply is: >=20 > 1. It _is_ included (only in a way different from what > you were thinking -- but nevertheless, it _is_ there). >=20 > 2. The major reason that nobody has implemented a way to > do it with ifconfig (like you proposed), is probably > the fact that there's already a different way (using > netgraph). So nobody was motivated to implement yet > another way to do it, I guess. >=20 > If you don't like to do it with netgraph, I suggest you > write some patches and submit them with send-pr(1). > If the patches are good, they will certainly get committed. The real reason the normal vlan framework doens't support it is that they framework is not all that well designed. It meets the requirements to simple handling of a trunked port, but little else. -- Brooks --=20 Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4 --WfZ7S8PLGjBY9Voh Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDRqOEXY6L6fI4GtQRAokwAJ9NrGSQHi6eQuxm+m3Fd/PpiBu9SwCfeE2P vUU3P2kBSfh4ZxNYUfoUDdI= =oGnn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --WfZ7S8PLGjBY9Voh--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051007163413.GC12691>