Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 11:38:59 +0300
From: Michael Tokarev <>
CC: Piotr Meyer <>
Subject: Re: VLANs in Owl way?

I'm sorry I stepped in very late into the game,
I didn't read this mailbox for over a week due
to unrelated issues.

Now I've read the whole discussion, at least
briefly, and, unfortunately, can conclude it
all makes no sense.

Old vconfig tool insisted on "proper" naming of
the vlan devices.  But this is not the case
anymore since kernel 2.6 era, or maybe much
earlier - I'm confident about all 2.6 but don't
remember how it was in previous versions.

Is it still relevant to support v2.4 kernel in
Owl and use vlans?

Current tool to manage 802.1Q vlans is ip from
iproute, and here's how it's done:

 ip link add link eth0 name vlaniface123 type vlan id 10

this creates a new network interface named vlaniface123
on top of eth0 with vlan id=10.  It's  shown by ifconfig
as "vlaniface123", and ip link shows it like
vlaniface123@...0.  All the rest works the same way.

What I'm trying to say: please don't restrict names
of interfaces like vconfig does.

Does iproute in Owl still lack vlan support?  I
remember someone mentioned that but I don't remember
if there was something conclusive, maybe things has
changed already (I was quite busy in last month or so).

That's just my comments, sure there's nothing stopping
you from implementing vlans in the obsolete way.  It's
just that, I think, not very productive when you consider
_new_ implementation - better to use proper tools and
way in this case.  Just my opinion.. ;)



Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.