Suresh Kannan wrote:
> Hi Bruce & all,
>
> interface foo {
> vif vlan 10.200 {
> }
> }
>
> Is the above syntax makes clear view for QinQ support ?.
>That was on the tip of my tongue, but I didn't dare speak it, because in some implementations, fooXX.YY can be used to mean "VLAN YY on interface fooXX". So I've been wary of using a period as a delimiter for the vlan term, given that overloaded meanings quickly lead to problems for network engineers during deployment, and it makes sense to make things easier for your user base. (Yes, I'd like to just get the damn bikeshed painted so the code can happen...) Even once we solve this simple problem of how to invoke a thing, we are left with the problem of the manifestation of the thing. Currently XORP knows how to make VLANs for Linux and FreeBSD, and to deal with that in the FEA block's syntax. Juniper has a very specific syntax for dual-tagging: http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos90/swconfig-network-interfaces/flexible-vlan-tagging.html#id-13039477 I can see why they've done this. It is easier IMHO to treat dual-tagging as a special case, because it's not the default, and most open source forwarding plane implementations out there are geared towards dealing with a single VLAN tag. I left Q-in-Q as an exercise for the reader in FreeBSD; my refactoring there was just so that I could use 802.1p. At the moment the way to accomplish Q-in-Q there is to use Netgraph. obviously this is purely software plane and thus isn't optimal, and I wager newer cards are actually able to support Q-in-Q in ASIC, so it makes sense to go about solving the VLAN problem in a way which is able to capture these new MPLS/Metro Ethernet oriented use cases. cheers BMS _______________________________________________ Xorp-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers
