On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 02:45:19AM +1000, Darren Reed wrote: > > In Sun, Jun 08, 2014 at 10:56:50PM +1000, Darren Reed wrote: > > > > > ... > > > inet6 fe80::203:baff:fe34:a1f5%cas0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x6 > > > vlan0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 > > > vlan: 200 parent: cas0 > > > address: 00:03:ba:34:a1:f5 > > > ... > > > vlan1: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 > > > vlan: 201 parent: cas0 > > > address: 00:03:ba:34:a1:f5 > > > > > I've got three interfaces with the same MAC address! > > > > This is correct. It is an error to connect two vlan interfaces on the > > same underlying physical network to the same layer 2 network. So the > > MAC address being the same can't cause problems. > > ... > > Note that the > > pathological case where you configure two vlan interfaces on the same > > physical interface with the _same_ vlanif, simulating dual-attach to the > > same physical LAN in the SunOS 4 case (which is where that was problematic) > > is also insane -- it's easy enough to work out why. > > I think you're wrong here. > > For example, what if I were to create two chroot environments on my > NetBSD box and I wanted to use a dedicated NIC and IP address for each? > And if I want each NIC to be its own vlan interface? > > Or what if I want to do virtual networking inside of NetBSD and create > a vwire between two vlan interfaces? > > Or connect both vlan interfaces to a virtual switch inside the kernel?
Why do any of these require stacking two instances of vlan, with the same vlanif, on the same physical interface? Thor