netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???

To: Mitchell Blank Jr <mitch@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 14:17:19 +0000
Cc: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>, Andrey Savochkin <saw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, rob@xxxxxxxxxxx, buytenh@xxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, gleb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Organization: NBase-Xyplex
References: <20000605053533.C77216@sfgoth.com> <Pine.GSO.4.20.0006050852550.18252-100000@shell.cyberus.ca> <20000607045935.G7740@sfgoth.com>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Mitchell Blank Jr wrote:
> 
> Really we need a new structure "net_fifo?" in order to divorce
> the queuing from the concept of a net_device.  Anything that
> wants to look to userland and the protocol stacks as a net_device
> should, wheteher or not you feel they are just a packet mangler
> or not.
> 

Excellent idea. net_device should represent physical device and provide
functionality of network device (hard_start_xmit, set_mac_address,
set_multicast_list, ...) but not functionality of second layer
(hard_header, hard_header_parse, ...). The functionality of ethernet
should be in ethernet net_fifo, functionality of vlan in vlan net_fifo,
bridge in bridge net_fifo. net_fifo is what user sees as network
interface. Third layer (ip, ipx, ...) communicates only with net_fifo
(and not with net_device) and each net_fifo may communicate with one or
more net_devices (bridging or bonding).

Are there problems with such architecture ?


> -Mitch

--
                        Gleb.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>