LinuxQuestions.org
Help answer threads with 0 replies.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Networking
User Name
Password
Linux - Networking This forum is for any issue related to networks or networking.
Routing, network cards, OSI, etc. Anything is fair game.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 12-17-2003, 02:33 PM   #1
Taishan269
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Distribution: Suse 9
Posts: 2

Rep: Reputation: 0
is there a way to make a 'real' virtual interface?


Hi all

I was setting up my network (i'm starting in Linux! whoopee!) and I was wondering - is there a way to make TRUE virtual interface on my network adapter? In essence, I want to create another interface all on it's own; with it's own MAC address and that can DHCP properly. I'm a network shaman in training, so naturally I want to do as much as I possibly can, and this would give me uber-flexibility and power. Is this even possible with the current network stack in the kernel? If not, I think it should be. An interface and an adapter are two very different things; they should not be treated as one. The only thing that adapter should be doing is passing frames; nothing more. As it is, the only layer 2 thing that it does is an Rx filter. While this might be thought of as a hinderance to what I want to do above, it is very easy to get around. Other than that, everything is done in software anyways. So why wouldn't someone be able to do it? I can't find info on this anywhere, just on IP Masquerading and VLANs, neither of which will do.

The point I want to get across - why doesn't Linux beat Microsoft to the punch, and begin to separate interfaces from adapters? Simply jam the NIC into promiscuous mode (to bypass the Rx filter), and voila! From software, you could maintain hosts of different interfaces across a single adapter or a range of adapters. It would be the shiznit, to put it mildly. Then add bridging and aggregation (true aggregation, not just multiplexing - I'm talking something that sits between the transport and network layers and does it's dirty work transparently w/o anything extra on the other end of the connection)(and do this across INTERFACES, not adapters), and you would have one killer network stack. The possibilities would be limitless; it would be like managing a killer raid array, with network interfaces; and since it does it's plexing at the packet level, it would be transparent; no special equipment would be necessary to aggregate internet connections. And better yet, every single networking device currently in use supports this!! Yes, switches, bridges, routers, everything would work perfectly fine with it.

So, why don't we? (I can't find anywhere to recommend this to the creators of Linux, so can someone point me in the right direction?)

Last edited by Taishan269; 12-17-2003 at 02:38 PM.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bonding a virtual interface frd4460 Linux - Networking 3 11-01-2013 03:48 PM
Graphical Interface for Real Producer little_penguin Linux - Software 0 07-04-2005 08:25 AM
virtual interface eth0:0 irfanasim Linux - General 2 10-11-2002 11:58 AM
packet reception by virtual network interface seeker321in Linux - Networking 0 04-19-2002 01:48 PM
Virtual Interface Limit mjakob Linux - Networking 0 11-27-2001 07:14 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Networking

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:57 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration