Subject: Re: Transitioning to 802.11q VLANs on a network using a NetBSD box with multiple physical interfaces
To: Manuel Bouyer <bouyer@antioche.eu.org>
From: Douglas Wade Needham <cinnion@ka8zrt.com>
List: tech-net
Date: 06/09/2007 00:27:30
	autolearn=ham version=3.1.0
Sender: tech-net-owner@NetBSD.org

At least one of the VLANs (vlan 4 in my example) will have to exist on
multiple physical subnets/segments, given where I need to put the
nodes for that one VLAN.  And given some of the traffic I push around
here, putting everything for my firewall on a single interface is not
really a good idea.  But it may be that my switch could have one port
configured in a way that packets coming in on that port on that one
vlan will get where they should go without passing through
alpha.... but the docs are a bit crappy in that area.

Well, off to bed for me.

- Doug

Quoting Manuel Bouyer (bouyer@antioche.eu.org):
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 02:02:38PM -0400, Douglas Wade Needham wrote:
> > [...]
> > Now, in playing around with NetBSD, I found that I could not do the
> > following:
> > 
> >     ifconfig vlan4 create
> >     ifconfig vlan4 vlan 4 vlanif fxp1
> >     ifconfig vlan4 inet 192.168.4.1 netmask 0xffffff00
> >     ifconfig vlan4 vlan 4 vlanif fxp2
> > 
> > The attempt at doing a second vlanif for the vlan fails because unlike
> > every other switch/router I have dealt with, NetBSD apparently can
> > only bind a vlan to a single physical interface.  And so, I am now
> 
> The same vlan interface, yes. Why do you want to have vlan4 on 2 physical
> interfaces ? briding ? link aggregation to use more bandwith ?
> 
> -- 
> Manuel Bouyer <bouyer@antioche.eu.org>
>      NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
> --

-- 
Douglas Wade Needham - KA8ZRT        UN*X Consultant & UW/BSD kernel programmer
Email:  cinnion @ ka8zrt . com       http://www.ka8zrt.com
Disclaimer: My opinions are my own.  Since I don't want them, why
            should my employer, or anybody else for that matter!