James Carlson wrote: > I'd like to propose that, for the purpose of bridging, PPA-hack VLANs > are different. They default to "forwarding off," which means that > they're not part of the bridge's "allowed VLAN" set for the underlying > link. > > Is there any problem with making PPA-hack VLANs different from > explicitly configured VLANs in this way?
I don't have a problem with that. There's no backward compatibility to worry about. I don't think administrators will have too hard a time moving their old VLAN PPA hack interfaces over to dladm if they want to use briding, especially if this limitation is stated in the briding documentation. > 1. What Clearview calls a "link" in this context is called a "port" > by IEEE documents. Yeah, I personally don't like either term; their both overloaded. A "data-link interface" is better, but too long winded. -Seb
