On 2013-10-30 12:50, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:

On 10/29/13 19:12, Maxime Bizon wrote:

quoted

 From a user POV, when you see a netdevice, you expect to be able to
receive or send packets from/to it. The ability to read stats/link is
only a secondary feature.

The important part is all the APIs stay consistent. I can use
same netlink calls. ifconfig works.
iproute2 works. People have written books on this stuff - we dont
have MCSE(Must Call Software Engineer) certification, but this is
as close as it gets. i.e the knowledge has been commoditized, even
my kid knows how to use these tools.

If i can get stats by doing ifconfig - that should provide illusion that
the netdevice is sending/receiving packets.

Pretty much all of the above have serious limitations when you're not
actually able to run the data path through the per-port netdevs.
You can't assign IP addresses to them. The network stack will probably
even attempt to assign IPv6 link-local addresses to these things,
causing even more confusion.
You can't add them to normal software bridges like other devices.
You can't use bonding. I could probably go on for a while.
There's a huge list of things that you simply cannot do with these
interfaces, and without knowing the details of the implementation, users
will be left clueless as to why that is.
I'd say that's a very serious violation of the principle of least surprise.
And knowing what the typical OpenWrt users do with their devices, I can
already forsee the bogus bug reports trickling in, if this is to be
implemented.

- Felix