[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: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 07:34:57 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: Mitchell Blank Jr <mitch@xxxxxxxxxx>, rob@xxxxxxxxxxx, buytenh@xxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, gleb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <393B414B.ACF84B1B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx

On Sun, 4 Jun 2000, Ben Greear wrote:

> Mitchell Blank Jr wrote:
> > (selecting source IPs for outgoing packets is taken care by the
> > routing code, right?!?)
> I hope someone has a good answer here...I certainly have no idea!

And yet you made the loudest noise;-> Ok, ok i take that back.
Indeed the routing slow path is affected and i would think this is very
The point is i see no need for us to make any change at this point just so
that we can accomodate VLANS; which in my opinion is brokenness at its

Andrey brought the best points so far. Just because something is broken
doesnt mean we need to continue doing it. 
Packet mungling does not equate to device. It does not equate to socket.
It is just packet mungling! We have netfilter and packet type for that.
A VLAN as far as i have seen is a packet mungler.

Regarding Zebra: i believe they use the name "interface" but really
mean a "circuit"; you could have many circuits within the same
interface of which some could be just simple unicast sockets in an
NBMA mode. An interface is brought up/down etc but does not need to be
abstracted as a device. 


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