Andrew Thompson wrote: > Here is a patch to add OpenBSD's trunk(4) interface, and also includes > LACP support which came from agr(4) on NetBSD. Im interested in anyone > who wants to test this and in particular lacp mode if you have a switch > that supports it. > > http://people.freebsd.org/~thompsa/if_trunk-20070330b.diff This looks very interesting. I'm busy testing with a switch that claims 802.3ad support. We're making extensive use of vlans to increase the number of interfaces availabble to us using switches to break out gigE into 100M interfaces. The bandwidth problem we're having is to our provider, a 100M connection, and we're looking at doing exactly this. However, it appears that this interface can't trunk vlan interfaces. Ian -- Ian Freislich _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

Andrew Thompson wrote: > On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 11:17:29AM +0200, Ian FREISLICH wrote: > > Andrew Thompson wrote: > > > Here is a patch to add OpenBSD's trunk(4) interface, and also includes > > > LACP support which came from agr(4) on NetBSD. Im interested in anyone > > > who wants to test this and in particular lacp mode if you have a switch > > > that supports it. > > > > > > http://people.freebsd.org/~thompsa/if_trunk-20070330b.diff > > > > This looks very interesting. I'm busy testing with a switch that > > claims 802.3ad support. > > > > We're making extensive use of vlans to increase the number of > > interfaces availabble to us using switches to break out gigE into > > 100M interfaces. The bandwidth problem we're having is to our > > provider, a 100M connection, and we're looking at doing exactly > > this. However, it appears that this interface can't trunk vlan > > interfaces. > > It sounds like you want it the other way around. The trunk should > be the lowest component in any setup so you should vlan the trunk > interface rather than trunk a vlan. No, I'm sure I want it the way I said. I know it sounds wrong, but I just don't have enough PCI-X slots to waste 2 on physical 100M NICs for the uplink from the routers. Ian -- Ian Freislich _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

Peter Jeremy wrote: > > --HcAYCG3uE/tztfnV > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Disposition: inline > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > On 2007-Apr-11 15:43:04 +0200, Ian FREISLICH <ianf@clue.co.za> wrote: > >Andrew Thompson wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 11:17:29AM +0200, Ian FREISLICH wrote: > >> > We're making extensive use of vlans to increase the number of > >> > interfaces availabble to us using switches to break out gigE into > >> > 100M interfaces. The bandwidth problem we're having is to our > >> > provider, a 100M connection, and we're looking at doing exactly > >> > this. However, it appears that this interface can't trunk vlan > >> > interfaces. > =2E.. > >No, I'm sure I want it the way I said. I know it sounds wrong, but > >I just don't have enough PCI-X slots to waste 2 on physical 100M > >NICs for the uplink from the routers. > > Trunking is a way of combining multiple physical interfaces to increase > the bandwidth. Trunking multiple VLANs on a single interface doesn't > make sense to me. 802.1q is VLAN tagging and trunking. This interface is LACP - link aggregation. I really think that it makes no sense to be able to aggregate some ethernet interfaces and not others. I suppose some pedant will tell me vlan interfaces are not ethernet. > I believe that the appropriate configuration for you is to have a > single VLAN within one of your GigE links for traffic to your > provider. Within the switch you assign that VLAN to multiple 100M > ports which are then trunked to the provider. This means that your > switch needs to understand trunking but FreeBSD doesn't. This is the configuration I'm going to be testing with our provider this morning because FreeBSD can't do link aggregation on VLAN interfaces. I'm hoping that not having IP data available to the switch will not prevent it from working in our scenario. Ian -- Ian Freislich _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

Lars Erik Gullerud wrote: > On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Ian FREISLICH wrote: > > > Peter Jeremy wrote: > >> > >> Trunking is a way of combining multiple physical interfaces to increase > >> the bandwidth. Trunking multiple VLANs on a single interface doesn't > >> make sense to me. > > > > 802.1q is VLAN tagging and trunking. This interface is LACP - link > > aggregation. I really think that it makes no sense to be able to > > aggregate some ethernet interfaces and not others. I suppose some > > pedant will tell me vlan interfaces are not ethernet. > > I'm not going to tell you that, I am however going to give you the 802.3ad > (Link Aggregation) explanation. Thanks for that. At least this explains why it can't be done. Ian -- Ian Freislich _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

Andrew Thompson wrote: > On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 07:39:00AM +0200, Ian FREISLICH wrote: > > Peter Jeremy wrote: > > > On 2007-Apr-11 15:43:04 +0200, Ian FREISLICH <ianf@clue.co.za> wrote: > > > >Andrew Thompson wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 11:17:29AM +0200, Ian FREISLICH wrote: > > > >> > We're making extensive use of vlans to increase the number of > > > >> > interfaces availabble to us using switches to break out gigE into > > > >> > 100M interfaces. The bandwidth problem we're having is to our > > > >> > provider, a 100M connection, and we're looking at doing exactly > > > >> > this. However, it appears that this interface can't trunk vlan > > > >> > interfaces. > > > =2E.. > > > >No, I'm sure I want it the way I said. I know it sounds wrong, but > > > >I just don't have enough PCI-X slots to waste 2 on physical 100M > > > >NICs for the uplink from the routers. > > > > > > Trunking is a way of combining multiple physical interfaces to increase > > > the bandwidth. Trunking multiple VLANs on a single interface doesn't > > > make sense to me. > > > > 802.1q is VLAN tagging and trunking. This interface is LACP - link > > aggregation. I really think that it makes no sense to be able to > > aggregate some ethernet interfaces and not others. I suppose some > > pedant will tell me vlan interfaces are not ethernet. > > I think the unfortunate name of trunk(4) that we inherited from OpenBSD > is causing quite some confusion. trunk(4) actually has nothing to do > with vlan trunking which I think you are after. > > I can see this topic coming up again so it could save some time to > rename the driver now. It would mean that we lose the naming link to the > same driver in OpenBSD but you cant win em all. > > Some names that have been suggested are: > > linkag(4) > agr(4) > bond(4) <- same as linux > > Any suggestions! I, for one don't find the name confusing. My correction above applied to Peter Jeremy's "Trunking multiple VLANs on a single interface doesn't make sense to me". The switches I have call this trunking in the manual and product sheet, but on the CLI the command to configure it is "channel". If you leave the name the same, it'll be easy to reuse documentation. Ian -- Ian Freislich _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"