Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 18:10:55 +0400 From: Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@cell.sick.ru> Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: VLAN_MTU (was Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/fxp if_fxp.c if_fxpvar.h) Message-ID: <20040527141055.GA32704@comp.chem.msu.su> In-Reply-To: <20040526064152.GD24738@cell.sick.ru> References: <200405251449.i4PEnkIa098672@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040525164251.GA3245@ip.net.ua> <20040525173458.GA18554@comp.chem.msu.su> <20040525184757.GA5546@ip.net.ua> <20040526032055.GA42697@comp.chem.msu.su> <20040526064152.GD24738@cell.sick.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[moving the discussion from the cvs lists to -net] On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 10:41:52AM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > > Y> ng_vlan(4) could send a control command to ng_ether(4) instructing > Y> the latter to increment the VLAN counter on the Ethernet interface > Y> and toggle VLAN_MTU on if the counter value became equal to 1. > > Two comments: > > 1) Just note that it should increment VLAN counter on creating of > any new VLAN hook. > 2) There may be some itermediate nodes between ng_ether and ng_vlan, > e.g. ng_tee(4), ng_etf(4), any custom traffic shaping or accounting > node. > > Two deal with second issue some new mechanism should be introduced in netgraph, > e.g. "broadcast" messages, which go down a hook spreading across all nodes, > and only nodes with appropriate cookie will see this message delivered. > > Y> Another way I see is to drop automatic fiddling with VLAN_MTU in > Y> the first place and implement an option for ifconfig(8) so that a > Y> user/admin can control the capability WRT a particular case, e.g., > Y> disable it if a NIC displays erroneous behaviour in long frame mode. > > From my point of view this is a good idea. The longer I've been thinking of the issue, the more I'm inclined to take the latter path. I believe that it would conform to the good tradition of Unix to offer a user as much control as possible and avoid doing "automagic" tricks behind user's back. Therefore I'd like to ask the community: Would anybody mind if vlan(4) gave up playing with VLAN_MTU on parent interfaces while a new option to ifconfig(8), say `vlanmtu', was introduced so that a user could control the feature manually? -- Yar
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040527141055.GA32704>