[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???
From: Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 21:42:57 +0200 (MEST)
Cc: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>, rob@xxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <3939647F.E08A09AB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx

On Sat, 3 Jun 2000, Ben Greear wrote:

> > I like Lennert and Gleb's because they dont use devices for the
> > abstraction rather they attach themselves to the device. You dont.
> I'm not sure you are correct here, Gleb, Lennert?  Either way, my
> VLANs are **logically** attached to devices, even if they don't have
> pointers linked off of the ethernet device.

I'm not too familiar with your code, so I couldn't say. Our code keeps a
list of vlan slaves in the master ethernet device struct.

All in all I think our approaches do not differ much. The idea is the
same, at least.

> > You could use the aliasing interface if you wanted to add extra IP
> > addresses (one per VLAN).
> Maybe I want to add 20 IP aliases to a VLAN?

I think not using fake slave devices is fundamentally wrong. Of course, I
could be wrong.


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