[LEDE-DEV] [PATCH] BT Home Hub 5A: configure Red Ethernet as DMZ interface (FS#490) and fix Red Ethernet switch port (FS#390)

Mauro Mozzarelli mauro at ezplanet.net
Sun Feb 12 08:40:50 PST 2017

On 12/02/17 15:56, Mathias Kresin wrote:
> 12.02.2017 15:55, Felix Fietkau:
>> @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.
> I'm not entirely sure if I got your concerns right.
> The overall objective is to have an out of the box usable ethernet wan 
> port beside the xdsl wan. My approach is to use the wan network name 
> for ethernet wan ports only. A few month ago, we had already a 
> discussion about renaming wan to ewan to make clear that it is the 
> ethernet wan network. But I was the only one who was the opinion that 
> it was a good idea and I discarded this approach.

Although I agree with Mathias that the Ethernet WAN could be renamed to 
EWAN, I understand also that this will deviate from the current standard 
and break backwards compatibility too for Ethernet WAN only routers. It 
is the same case we have for xDSL routers. If we want both Ethernet and 
xDSL defined as WANs, one of them cannot be named WAN.

> The xwan network is intended to be used for router having an ethernet 
> wan port and a 3G/4G modem as well.
> None of the commits should break anything. The xwan network has the 
> same default firewall settings as the wan network. In the end it 
> doesn't really matter to which network an interface belongs. It should 
> work the same way for both. Existing configs should work as before, 
> since the it isn't really a rename of the wan network. I just add a 
> new network and old configs would use the still existing wan network.

You are correct that the name does not matter, however if we have 
routers already configured to associate the xDSL or Ethernet to WAN, 
when we flash the new firmware we will have to reconfigure them to 
rename the device. This is all good if the routers are physically there, 
but when the routers are in remote unmanaged locations (like I have) it 
becomes a problem. Renaming the interface is a small thing, but it will 
impact many end users. I advocate to maintain WAN for xDSL out of my use 
case interest and also because personally I think an xDSL is truly a WAN 
interface whilst an Ethernet can be anything.

> It is quite unlikely that the vlan change breaks anything. The default 
> vlan config is only changed for devices which are having the 
> lantiq,wan device tree property. The port with this dt property is 
> exposed as eth1 but not configured/considered by default in any way.
> It is even more worse. The eth1 interface can not be used as it is. 
> Due to xrx200 switch driver oddities, the lantiq,wan interface gets 
> the vlan 2 assigned without being mentioned in ucidef_add_switch. If 
> the user wants to use this interface (s)he 
Agreed, the vlan change fixes a serious issue. We should commit the 
change asap.


More information about the Lede-dev mailing list