GVRP
Subsystems (2)
I've written an applicant-only GVRP implementation for the kernel some time ago (for those not familiar: it dynamically registers VLANs with switches. Applicant-only means its only the "client-side") and I'm wondering whether I should merge it. It should be quite easy to move it to userspace, OTOH I think it would be nice to have the client-side support for this without having to install additional daemons. But since this is not a really strong argument, I'd like to hear if anyone has an opinion about this.
The GVRP implementation sits on top of an GARP implementation, which could also support GMRP for multicast address registrations.
I'm not including the patch yet because it would need to be split up and needs some minor cleanups, just for orientation, the GARP implementation is about 600 lines of simple code, the GVRP implementation something like 60 lines of even simpler code.
Opinions welcome.
Quoted 9 lines · Patrick McHardy
I've written an applicant-only GVRP implementation for the kernel some time ago (for those not familiar: it dynamically registers VLANs with switches. Applicant-only means its only the "client-side") and I'm wondering whether I should merge it. It should be quite easy to move it to userspace, OTOH I think it would be nice to have the client-side support for this without having to install additional daemons. But since this is not a really strong argument, I'd like to hear if anyone has an opinion about this.
Quoted 7 lines
The GVRP implementation sits on top of an GARP implementation, which could also support GMRP for multicast address registrations.
I'm not including the patch yet because it would need to be split up and needs some minor cleanups, just for orientation, the GARP implementation is about 600 lines of simple code, the GVRP implementation something like 60 lines of even simpler code.
If it's simple, why not?
But-- when I was writing RFC 5110 one of the things we evaluated was whether an another application of GARP, GMRP, could be used.
We asked IEEE about this and they said that GARP and GMRP are obsolete, below is the most important part of RFC 5110 with this respect:
IEEE 802.1D-2004 specification describes Generic Attribute Registration Protocol (GARP), and GARP Multicast Registration Protocol (GMRP) [GMRP] is a link-layer multicast group application of GARP that notifies switches about MAC multicast group memberships. If GMRP is used in conjunction with IP multicast, then the GMRP registration function would become associated with an IGMP "join". However, this GMRP-IGMP association is beyond the scope of GMRP. GMRP requires support at the host stack and it has not been widely implemented. Further, IEEE 802.1 considers GARP and GMRP obsolete being replaced by Multiple Registration Protocol (MRP) and Multicast Multiple Registration Protocol (MMRP) that are being specified in IEEE 802.1ak [802.1ak]. MMRP is expected to be mainly used between bridges. Some further information about GARP/GMRP is also available in Appendix B of [RFC3488].
Signature · 3 lines
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
Quoted 24 lines · Pekka Savola
Quoted 9 lines · Patrick McHardy
I've written an applicant-only GVRP implementation for the kernel some time ago (for those not familiar: it dynamically registers VLANs with switches. Applicant-only means its only the "client-side") and I'm wondering whether I should merge it. It should be quite easy to move it to userspace, OTOH I think it would be nice to have the client-side support for this without having to install additional daemons. But since this is not a really strong argument, I'd like to hear if anyone has an opinion about this.
Quoted 7 lines
The GVRP implementation sits on top of an GARP implementation, which could also support GMRP for multicast address registrations.
I'm not including the patch yet because it would need to be split up and needs some minor cleanups, just for orientation, the GARP implementation is about 600 lines of simple code, the GVRP implementation something like 60 lines of even simpler code.
If it's simple, why not?
But-- when I was writing RFC 5110 one of the things we evaluated was whether an another application of GARP, GMRP, could be used.
We asked IEEE about this and they said that GARP and GMRP are obsolete, below is the most important part of RFC 5110 with this respect:
Quoted 14 lines
IEEE 802.1D-2004 specification describes Generic Attribute Registration Protocol (GARP), and GARP Multicast Registration Protocol (GMRP) [GMRP] is a link-layer multicast group application of GARP that notifies switches about MAC multicast group memberships. If GMRP is used in conjunction with IP multicast, then the GMRP registration function would become associated with an IGMP "join". However, this GMRP-IGMP association is beyond the scope of GMRP. GMRP requires support at the host stack and it has not been widely implemented. Further, IEEE 802.1 considers GARP and GMRP obsolete being replaced by Multiple Registration Protocol (MRP) and Multicast Multiple Registration Protocol (MMRP) that are being specified in IEEE 802.1ak [802.1ak]. MMRP is expected to be mainly used between bridges. Some further information about GARP/GMRP is also available in Appendix B of [RFC3488].
Thanks for the pointer, I'll try to read up on this tommorrow. If GARP is considered obsolete, I guess there's no point in merging GVRP.