Is something wrong with netdev? Seems like it is offlined and polls every
24 hours or so.
On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> By looking into the header you break the layering. Anyway what do you
> expect to find there? IP, IPX or some protocol that I just wrote? How
> are you going to support my protocol? Or you suppose that I should write
> my own code in order to support my new protocol over VLAN ?
;-> i think you are totaly misunderstanding me.
If the ethertype is IPX it goes to IPX. If the ethertype is your protocol
it goes to your protocol.
There is _no_ protocol violation. So how does this require me to change
The only reason you need to extend (not change) IP is because 'routing'
(which appears to be a major requirement) is a function of IP.
The hooks are already there!
> Because I want to run IPX in separate VLAN! How will I be able to do
> that with your implementation?
Yes, of course!
> interface. I don't see what makes you think that what 'ifconfig -a'
> shows are devices they are _interfaces_. Interface can be attached to
> device (eth0), can be not (dummy0, lo), one interface can be attached to
> many devices (bridging), many interfaces can be attached to single
> device (tunneling, vlans).
Ok, so do you use ifconfig to attach a vlan to a device? And why not?
Sure go ahead and extend ifconfig so now it knows about attaching and
deleting VLANs on a device. After all, it is another interface ;->
A VLAN is a way of logically separating traffic, across the same device
Device being a physical entity; i would prefer to call a VLAN a circuit
And sure i dont mind re-writting ifconfig so it knows about such things.
But i dont know if it would still be called ifconfig.
On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Ben Greear wrote:
> NOTE: The above solution has not been, IMHO, shown to have any
> serious performance hits in the critical path.
> The Jamal/Jes solution requires:
English (as is any natural language) could be very ambigious. I suppose
Jes or I could have used mathematical equations to express ourselves.
I really fail to see how you reached the conclusion above after all that
> It's the other 10% that always kills you. I don't even understand your
> argument for IPX. Isn't linux supposed to be able to route/switch IPX?
> You'd be taking that away and asking that it be done somewhere else?
I am not ruling out IPX or Gleb's protocol. If IPX was so important
why are we "routing", which is an IP term? I understand there are legacy
protocols such as appletalk etc which have to be supported.
In their native form they work just fine today over Linux.
If you want to wrap them in a VLAN, how is my proposal stopping you?
> Oh, and when we get bridging working, will your implementation allow us
> to add VLANs to PPP (bridging ethernet) devices? That is something we
> may want out of whatever VLAN implementation survives...
Why dont you take up the challenge and write up an RFC? Its not about
what "survives"; its about what a good solution is. "Survival" with
a technical twist is a corporate political term. Normally, it is
driven by how colorful your chartware is. We are above that.
So go ahead and write something up so we dont resort to the "he said,