On 12/02/17 15:56, Mathias Kresin wrote:
12.02.2017 15:55, Felix Fietkau:
@Mathias: could you perhaps refactor the commits to put the wan->xwan
rename *after* the ethernet port VLAN change?
I'm also a bit sceptical about the interface rename and would like to
discuss this further, but I think the VLAN change is important enough to
get it in the tree soon.
I'm not entirely sure if I got your concerns right.
The overall objective is to have an out of the box usable ethernet wan
port beside the xdsl wan. My approach is to use the wan network name
for ethernet wan ports only. A few month ago, we had already a
discussion about renaming wan to ewan to make clear that it is the
ethernet wan network. But I was the only one who was the opinion that
it was a good idea and I discarded this approach.
Although I agree with Mathias that the Ethernet WAN could be renamed to
EWAN, I understand also that this will deviate from the current standard
and break backwards compatibility too for Ethernet WAN only routers. It
is the same case we have for xDSL routers. If we want both Ethernet and
xDSL defined as WANs, one of them cannot be named WAN.
The xwan network is intended to be used for router having an ethernet
wan port and a 3G/4G modem as well.
None of the commits should break anything. The xwan network has the
same default firewall settings as the wan network. In the end it
doesn't really matter to which network an interface belongs. It should
work the same way for both. Existing configs should work as before,
since the it isn't really a rename of the wan network. I just add a
new network and old configs would use the still existing wan network.
You are correct that the name does not matter, however if we have
routers already configured to associate the xDSL or Ethernet to WAN,
when we flash the new firmware we will have to reconfigure them to
rename the device. This is all good if the routers are physically there,
but when the routers are in remote unmanaged locations (like I have) it
becomes a problem. Renaming the interface is a small thing, but it will
impact many end users. I advocate to maintain WAN for xDSL out of my use
case interest and also because personally I think an xDSL is truly a WAN
interface whilst an Ethernet can be anything.
It is quite unlikely that the vlan change breaks anything. The default
vlan config is only changed for devices which are having the
lantiq,wan device tree property. The port with this dt property is
exposed as eth1 but not configured/considered by default in any way.
It is even more worse. The eth1 interface can not be used as it is.
Due to xrx200 switch driver oddities, the lantiq,wan interface gets
the vlan 2 assigned without being mentioned in ucidef_add_switch. If
the user wants to use this interface (s)he
Agreed, the vlan change fixes a serious issue. We should commit the
change asap.
Mauro
_______________________________________________
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
