[Top] [All Lists]

Re: routable interfaces WAS( Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (DoesNOT

To: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: routable interfaces WAS( Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (DoesNOT meet Linus' sumission policy!)
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 20:51:13 +0200
Cc: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <>; from on Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 01:29:51PM -0500
References: <> <>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 01:29:51PM -0500, jamal wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Ben Greear wrote:
> > > My thought was to have the vlan be attached on the interface ifa list and
> > > just give it a different label since it is a "virtual interface" on top
> > > of the "physical interface". Now that you mention the SNMP requirement,
> > > maybe an idea of major:minor ifindex makes sense. Say make the ifindex
> > > a u32 with major 16 bit and minor 16 bit. This way we can have upto 2^16
> > > physical interfaces and upto 2^16 virtual interfaces on the physical
> > > interface. The search will be broken into two 16 bits.
> >
> > What problem does this fix?
> >
> > If you are mucking with the ifindex, you may be affecting many places
> > in the rest of the kernel, as well as user-space programs which use
> > ifindex to bind to raw devices.
> >
> I am talking about 2.5 possibilities now that 2.4 is out. I think
> "parasitic/virtual" interfaces is not a issue specific to VLANs.
> VLANs happen to use devices today to solve the problem.
> As pointed by that example no routing daemons are doing aliased
> interfaces (which are also virtual interfaces).
> We need some more general solution.

And what about bonding device? What major number should they use? 

Ifindexes not reusable so in your scheme we should have separate minor 
counter for each major interface, what for?


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>