From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 7 Jan 2001 13:52:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 7 Jan 2001 13:52:42 -0500 Received: from gleb.nbase.co.il ([194.90.136.56]:35084 "EHLO gleb.nbase.co.il") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 7 Jan 2001 13:52:31 -0500 From: Gleb Natapov Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 20:51:13 +0200 To: jamal Cc: Ben Greear , Chris Wedgwood , linux-kernel , "netdev@oss.sgi.com" Subject: Re: routable interfaces WAS( Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (DoesNOT meet Linus' sumission policy!) Message-ID: <20010107205113.H28257@nbase.co.il> In-Reply-To: <3A58C1C9.1E4B6265@candelatech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from hadi@cyberus.ca on Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 01:29:51PM -0500 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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? -- Gleb. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/