Hello Jo, On 11/25/19 1:01 PM, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote: > Hi, > > does it make sense to keep the vlan/vid indirection if we increase the > table size to 4096? A simple 1:1 mapping of the vid to the table index > would be simpler and more robust from the configuration pov.
i would like to keep it (for the moment), but i see why it's not the desirable the way it is now (for the AR83x7). Reason being, we have this problem also in the opposite direction. The AR724x / AR933x has a similar issue, but in the opposite direction. It advertises a VLAN table size of 128, but in fact it only has a table size of 16. If we do a 1:1 mapping for the whole series, this would break for users who use a VLAN > 15 on the affected devices. I'm working on more patches to differentiate between VLAN_ID_MAX and VLAN_TABLE_SIZE, but for the short term (and in light of 19.07), i think we should fix this simple bug now. What do you think? Best wishes David > > ~ Jo > > _______________________________________________ > openwrt-devel mailing list > openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel > _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
