[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???
From: Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 22:20:56 +0200 (MEST)
Cc: Andrey Savochkin <saw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mitchell Blank Jr <mitch@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, rob@xxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx

On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, Andi Kleen wrote:

> > > The current kernel infrastructure for packet mangling may still need
> > > some adjustments, but it at least exists.  I'm encouraging to consider
> > > VLAN implementation as just a netfilter module.
> > 
> > "All the world is an IP net"? How should I run IPX over my VLANs then?
> Netfilter is not an IP only thing. It is a generic framework for
> packet mangling. Although currently only IPv4 and IPv6 netfilter
> implementations exist it would be no big problem to add ``raw
> ethernet'' netfilter hooks.

Raw ethernet netfilter hooks, as are IPX netfilter hooks by the way, are
currently a nice blue cloud in the sky.

As we're getting into the architectural purity business anyway, does it
make a whole lot of sense to netfilter on two different protocol levels?


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