On 2017-02-12 15:16, Mauro M. wrote: > Hello Felix, > > Thank you for your comments. > > > On 11/02/17 21:49, Felix Fietkau wrote: >> Hey Mauro, >> please don't take Mathias' feedback as hostile, it really isn't. His > Please see the threads on FS#390 and FS#321 there is a pattern. I don't see any real hostility in there, I guess he was sometimes a bit frustrated because in your patches and responses you seemed to consider only your device and ignored his concerns about these changes affecting other devices in a negative way.
>> patch seems to take the same basic approach as yours, so I would >> consider his request for testing his staging tree reasonable. > I am sure that technically Mathias' patch will work. The problem is not > technical, but rather in the prioritization of the Red Ethernet Use > Cases that I documented in my previous post. Yes, I understand your use case. >> While you can treat the extra port in your configuration as a 'dmz' >> interface, I don't think it is reasonable for the default config. >> You should be able to make your configuration work even with his changes. >> Could you please run the test even if you still like your change better? > I understand the logic to name the Red Ethernet as "wan". This would be > aligned to the majority of routers that do not have an xDSL port. > However, since I want to have full control from the wire entering my > premises, I always prefer a router with an actual xDSL WAN port. In my > area the upgrade from xDSL is an actual Ethernet IP/IP Subnet (no pppoe > necessary). Please note that I'm not comparing this situation to routers without xDSL part at all. I specifically mentioned the Buffalo device, because it is also a VR9 device with built-in modem and with a separate WAN ethernet port. > Therefore I never had any use for routers with a WAN Ethernet as WAN. I > just use the WAN Interface with a static IP on the DMZ. > > On xDSL routers the DSL port has always been the WAN interface. > The Red Ethernet on BT Home Hub 5 xDSL router is an extra bonus. You really don't need to go on explaining your use case to me, I already fully understood it from the first time you described it. I also understand why you prefer it over having the port labelled as WAN. However, the default use of this port (just as on the Buffalo device) is as a secondary WAN port (in case the xDSL part does not get used). This is the reason why I consider Mathias' change to treat the port as a secondary WAN port more appropriate here, including the fact that this makes support for the HomeHub device more consistent with other devices that have a similar hardware configuration, e.g. the Buffalo device that I mentioned. > I believe that renaming the current "wan" to "xwan" on xDSL routers > would be a mistake because it is not backward compatible. Technically, both your change and Mathias' change are breaking backwards compatibility in some cases, because eth1 gets changed to a VLAN on eth0. There is no real way around that. @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. - Felix _______________________________________________ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev