On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 03:35:53PM +0200, Oeschger Patrick wrote: > On May 15, 2011, at 15:25, Kenneth R Westerback wrote: > > > On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 02:24:27PM +0200, Oeschger Patrick wrote: > >> i was playing with virtual routing on openbsd4.9 recently > >> first results using vlans are impressive > >> now i am asking myself if virtual routing is possible > >> - without using dedicated physical interfaces for each routing domain > >> - without using dedicated vlans for each routing domain > >> > >> idea behind this: > >> i have a network appliance with 3 interface (int/ext/mgmt) > >> i want to configure 5 routing domains > >> i have limited number of physical interfaces > >> i do not want to use vlans > >> > >> so what i would need in this case is something like a virtual ethernet > >> interface > >> - which can be bound to a physical ethernet interface (similar to vlans) > >> - and the virtual virtual ethernet interface should be assignable to a > routing > >> domain > >> > >> any ideas? > >> guess aliases of an interface are not assignable to a routing domain...(?) > >> maybe something in progress in the dev tree? > >> > >> many thanx > >> /pat > >> > > > > vether(4) ? > > > > .... Ken > > > > well... > i guess vether(4) cannot be attachted to a physical interface > maybe i'm wrong here(?) > had a glimplse at vether(4) yesterday
vether(4) must be used together with bridge(4). You then can bridge the physical interface with the vether instances. Now there is one issue and this is the bridge(4) itself fails to properly forward traffic between to local domains (like vether0 to vether1). Traffic comming in on the real interface is not affected. I plan to fix this somewhen but a few other things need to go in first. -- :wq Claudio
