>> I also would like to know if anyone knows of any ADSL2+ Annex M standard >> PCI (/x/) based modem card that I can use to connect to my ISP with >> instead of using an external device? >> >> So far in my search I came across this: >> >> http://linitx.com/viewcategory.php?catid=47
This is basically an ADSL router on a PCI card presenting as an ethernet interface. iirc, you configure it with telnet/http. In a normal config then this card will be actively routing packets. Personally I prefer to have a separate router/modem that can be swapped out without powering down the machine, and usually connected by a better quality network interface than an rl(4).... Main advantage I see with these particular carsd is that if you have a dual-PSU machine you can get some power protection. If you want to terminate ppp in OpenBSD then you can do that just as well with an external box as you can with one of these (configure in bridge mode, run pppoe(4) in OpenBSD). >> Are these going to be OpenBSD compatible or are there others??? Yes should be compatible, it just looks like a nic. >> Does anyone know of a VDSL2 solution like this also? Don't know of one. My same comments would apply about preferring a separate box. >> For software I plan to use Quagga/Zebra which should be in the ports or >> compatible easily coupled with NAT, ACL's, Firewall using PF or so.... > > In OpenBSD there are actually usable routing daemons, OpenBGPD, > OpenRIPD and OpenOSPFD. Ugh quagga. Maybe when someone pulls together all the various internally-maintained forks of it it'll be a bit more usable.. The OpenBSD routing daemons are pretty good. Other than that for open-source routing there are some circumstances where BIRD running on Linux might be useful (personally I can't stand the config but I'd rather run this than Quagga..). >> Is OpenBSD compatible with Cisco VTP and STP to trunk VLANs to Cisco >> switches? > > I'm not familiar with VTP, the rest will be fine. Standard 802.1q works fine - vlan(4) and we also do QinQ (ethertype 0x88a8 only) with svlan(4). We don't do VTP (or GVRP), you need to configure vlans separately. Personally I don't see that as a disadvantage :) STP is for bridging not for vlan support, we do support STP/RSTP but not MSTP though switches should fallback to RSTP in that case. (I try and leave bridging to switches though). >> I did discover this already: >> >> http://fengnet.com/book/icuna/ch05lev1sec5.html >> >> so it would seem so, however I do not know if link-aggregation would >> work?? As in Cisco Etherchannel to multiple ports on the router. >> > > Yep, trunk will work fine with a cisco. trunk(4) supports LACP and static configs ('trunkproto loadbalance' should be compatible with the statically-configured Cisco FEC, though LACP is preferred if you have the option). >> There are many more questions I have but will refrain from asking at >> this phase as most of them can be got round by researching; like Cisco >> IPSEC/GRE VPN compatibility et el..... IPsec is mostly compatible but there's a bit of breakage if the ipsec gateways are behind NAT (because Cisco still follows a very old nat-t draft rather than the standard). gre(4) should work fine.
