| To: | rob@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ??? |
| From: | Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 02 Jun 2000 17:09:09 +0000 |
| Cc: | buytenh@xxxxxxx, hadi@xxxxxxxxxx, greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, gleb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Organization: | NBase-Xyplex |
| References: | <Pine.GSO.4.20.0006020741140.13652-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0006021439170.19298-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <14647.58672.343104.432906@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Rob Walker wrote:
>
<snip>
> Why should VLANs not be fake devices? How are they different from
> aliased interfaces?
Not so good example IMHO. Aliased interfaces are deprecated ;)
>
> rob
--
Gleb.
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???, Rob Walker |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???, Rob Walker |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???, Rob Walker |
| Next by Thread: | Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???, Rob Walker |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |