GARP support

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Hi All,
Dose Linux support GARP applications ( GMRP and GVRP) on any of its
releases. Please let me know. Is there any source available for the
same ( Other then what is provided as part of IEEE 802.1D and 802.1Q
standard).

Thanks in Advance
Pritam

 

[Sean]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

pritamganguly@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi All,
> Dose Linux support GARP applications ( GMRP and GVRP) on any of its
> releases. Please let me know. Is there any source available for the
> same ( Other then what is provided as part of IEEE 802.1D and 802.1Q
> standard).
>
> Thanks in Advance
> Pritam
>

Vlan support is more a matter of the network card driuver than the
underlying OS. The os doesn't generally see things at layer 2.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

sean <sean@snerts-r-us.org> writes:

>pritamganguly@gmail.com wrote:
>> Dose Linux support GARP applications ( GMRP and GVRP) on any of its
>> releases. Please let me know. Is there any source available for the
>> same ( Other then what is provided as part of IEEE 802.1D and 802.1Q
>> standard).
>
>Vlan support is more a matter of the network card driuver than the
>underlying OS. The os doesn't generally see things at layer 2.

Ahem, this is completely wrong.

For one, network card drivers are part of the OS.

Second, network card drivers, at least under Linux, know almost nothing
of VLANs - they just know they have to tell the hardware that it should
accept frames that are four bytes longer.

All VLAN handling is part of the core network stack of Linux,
or, to be more exact, of the ethernet handling core, which is
100% independant of network card drivers, and definitely sees
things at layer 2.

To answer the original poster: no, as far as I know, the current
Linux implementation knows nothing about GARP.

best regards
Patrick

 

[Sean]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Patrick Schaaf wrote:


>
> Ahem, this is completely wrong.
>
> For one, network card drivers are part of the OS.

Um, OK. I can see how someone might view it that way.
IMO, anything that does not ship in the box with the OS is npot part of
the OS proper - so IMO most drivers are NOT part of the OS.

Look at it this way - if you buy third party add ons for your car (say
for oinstance biiger chrome wheels), do you consider them part of your
car? I don't. They are seperate.

>
> Second, network card drivers, at least under Linux, know almost nothing
> of VLANs - they just know they have to tell the hardware that it should
> accept frames that are four bytes longer.

Perhaps not under Linux at the moment. But they could - most higher end
network card drivers for Windoze certainlt can do VLANS (tagging, but
noat GARP)
>
> All VLAN handling is part of the core network stack of Linux,
> or, to be more exact, of the ethernet handling core, which is
> 100% independant of network card drivers, and definitely sees
> things at layer 2.

Interesting. Never knew that. Poor design, IMO.
Should not be part of the core - should be more abstracted for the
obvious reasons.
>
> To answer the original poster: no, as far as I know, the current
> Linux implementation knows nothing about GARP.
>
> best regards
> Patrick

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

In article <1133m4nfbf4o6f2@news.supernews.com>,
sean <sean@snerts-r-us.org> wrote:

> Patrick Schaaf wrote:
>
> > All VLAN handling is part of the core network stack of Linux,
> > or, to be more exact, of the ethernet handling core, which is
> > 100% independant of network card drivers, and definitely sees
> > things at layer 2.
>
> Interesting. Never knew that. Poor design, IMO.

It all depends on whether you are concerned about performance. Many
(most?) network-savvy operating systems implement the "fast-path" of the
network code in the OS kernel. Good examples include VMS and Solaris.
The fact that Windows does not do so speaks volumes for its design and
performance.

"Layering makes a good servant, but a bad master." -- Mike Padlipsky


--
Rich Seifert Networks and Communications Consulting
21885 Bear Creek Way
(408) 395-5700 Los Gatos, CA 95033
(408) 228-0803 FAX

Send replies to: usenet at richseifert dot com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

sean <sean@snerts-r-us.org> writes:

>Patrick Schaaf wrote:

>> Ahem, this is completely wrong.
>>
>> For one, network card drivers are part of the OS.

>Um, OK. I can see how someone might view it that way.
>IMO, anything that does not ship in the box with the OS is npot part of
>the OS proper - so IMO most drivers are NOT part of the OS.

We were talking about Linux. Apart from some weird high end graphics
card vendors, which supply binary drivers, ALL drivers are part of
the Linux kernel, developed in tandem with kernel improvements, and
delivered in one piece (maybe built modular, or a recompile away,
but delivered with the rest of the sources).

>> Second, network card drivers, at least under Linux, know almost nothing
>> of VLANs - they just know they have to tell the hardware that it should
>> accept frames that are four bytes longer.

>Perhaps not under Linux at the moment. But they could - most higher end
>network card drivers for Windoze certainlt can do VLANS (tagging, but
>noat GARP)

Maybe they have to do it, because Windows (the Windows network stack
and/or driver API and/or whatever) doesn't know about VLANs, itself?

Handling VLANs (tagged frames) is a pure logical software function,
just like ethertype and MAC address handling / checking. Putting it
at the driver layer is bad design, in my opinion, because it results
in code duplication in each and every driver, with a very good chance
of inconsistent operation with hardware/drivers from different vendors.

A hardware driver is for shoving bits from and to cards. Interpreting
the bits is best left to suitable shared components of the OS.

>> All VLAN handling is part of the core network stack of Linux,
>> or, to be more exact, of the ethernet handling core, which is
>> 100% independant of network card drivers, and definitely sees
>> things at layer 2.

>Interesting. Never knew that. Poor design, IMO.
>Should not be part of the core - should be more abstracted for the
>obvious reasons.

Maybe you should look at how things are layered in Linux, before you
jump to such conclusions. The things I've seen in the Linux networking
code, are usually abstracted quite well. Where they aren't, and it
starts to show, things are changed after some time.

best regards
Patrick