Hi Perry.
On 17/09/2021 15:27, Perry wrote:
Hi all,
On 9/17/21 1:30 PM, Rich Brown wrote:
Hi Arınç
On Sep 17, 2021, at 3:17 AM, Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.u...@arinc9.com> wrote:
The current naming used on LuCI/UCI is inaccurate and confusing. The
“interfaces” under Network → Interfaces actually represent networks. The actual
interfaces are called “device”.
I agree that the terminology is confusing. I really struggled with the names
when I added them into the preface to the DSA Mini-tutorial
(https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/network/dsa/dsa-mini-tutorial). I did some
research looking at the original DSA documentation: it didn't offer much in the
way of definitions. So I followed my usual practice of documenting the lingo of
whatever application I'm using.
After looking hard at how LuCI seemed to work, I wrote:
--------
• Devices are physical connections that convey bits/frames to other
computers. They operate at layer 2 in the protocol stack, have a MAC address
along with several other configurable parameters...
• Interfaces route IP packets and operate at layer 3 in the protocol
stack. An interface is associated with a single device that sends/receives its
packets. Interfaces get their IP address parameters by the choice of protocol...
---------
I haven't heard any corrections from others about these assertions, so I am
hopeful that I got those definitions right.
When you say that "interfaces... actually represent networks" I think you mean that they're
"subnets" (and have a subnet address range, IP address, and other characteristics). Is that what you mean?
Although I'm neither a Linux OS or network expert, I can see an explanation for using the terms "devices" and
"interfaces" as defined above.
This is not always the case. For example, it is possible to have a tun
or tap interface which does not have a corresponding ip address. This
is more than just a device, because layer 3 packets can arrive on such
an interface.
Another example, from Freifunk, are mesh (either Ad-Hoc or 802.11s)
interfaces. These are interfaces which have a static IP address, but
the netmask is 255.255.255.255. This is not a network in the sense most
people are used to using, but still a completely valid configuration.
This is a very good point. For example, I use WireGuard without any IP
address used on the interface. Although you can assign more than one
subnet (or none at all) on the interface, each entry under "config
interface" still represents the communication between a group of devices
that was divided from another group of devices communicating with each
other, in other words, a network. I can configure DHCP, firewall or e.g.
wireguard related options on it.
Why do I create another "network" on OpenWrt? Maybe I want to separate
my network from the guest network, maybe I need to create another
network which uses PPPoE or DHCP for ISP communication, or I want to use
WireGuard VPN, etc. That's why the "network" term fits in the best.
Throughout LuCI, it can be seen that they're already called networks.
- firewall - zone settings: "Covered networks"
- wireless: Choose the network(s) you want to attach to this wireless
interface
I think staying with the terminology "device" and "interface" is the
right way to go.
Greets,
Perry
In this case, I believe it will be difficult to change the terminology used in
OpenWrt/LuCI. I think that train has left the station. Perhaps our efforts will
be best used toward documenting the syntax and GUI as it is today, so that
people can configure their gear the way they want.
Best regards,
Rich
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
