[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <556CF569.2050408@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 17:14:33 -0700
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To: Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
CC: Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Jerome Oufella <jerome.oufella@...oirfairelinux.com>,
Chris Healy <cphealy@...il.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] DSA and Marvell 88E6352 802.1q support
On 31/05/15 14:21, Scott Feldman wrote:
>> Hi Scott,
>>
>> If I understand you correctly, that means we would expect users to
>> use bridge commands even on non-bridged dsa ports. I don't think we can
>> make this kind of assumption. Users will expect configure VLANs on
>> non-bridge ports as they would normally configure VLANs, using the 8021q
>> module.
>>
>> So I guess we'll have to support the ndo ops for dsa.
>
> I think that's fine. There is flexibility here. Using the "bridge"
> command for non-bridged ports is a little weird. You'll still need
> setlink to get the PVID/untagged flags, for the bridged-port cases, as
> was done in the original RFC patch.
>
> I wonder if a new command "vlan" for the iproute2 pkg would be useful?
> It would absorb the vconfig command options, making vconfig obsolete.
> Some of vconfig functionality is already in iproute2, for example "ip
> link add link ... type vlan ..."
I would definitively like to see that. Right now, this is a little
confusing for users to realize that using bridge + VLAN filtering is a
lot more powerful to configure a switch rather than using
vconfig/iproute add type vlan.
--
Florian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists