Sebastien Roy writes: > 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.
OK. I was mostly concerned about the seeming inconsistency -- having different "default" values for different cases -- because it makes sense to me but might not make sense to others. But as long as that's not a concern for the Clearview team, I'm not worried as much. As for the documentation, yes, the limitation and rationale for it will be included there. > > 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. "Thingy" would work for me. Peter Memishian writes: > > > Is there any problem with making PPA-hack VLANs different from > > explicitly configured VLANs in this way? > > None here. Thanks! -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
