[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???
From: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 08:35:09 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mitchell Blank Jr <mitch@xxxxxxxxxx>, rob@xxxxxxxxxxx, buytenh@xxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, gleb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <393B9C33.A2AC848C@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx

On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, Gleb Natapov wrote:

> jamal wrote:
> It seams that you suppose that if you don't need vlans, nobody needs
> vlans.
> You will be surprised, but some people find them useful. :)

No no. I am for VLANS, just not using devices.
It's peer pressure, i dont think we can live without VLANS.
It does not matter whether they are useful or not.

> I've looked at Zebra code. 'shutdown' command directly communicates with
> the kernel using zebra interface name as kernel interface name. So it
> seams that in order to use interface in zebra one should have the same
> interface in kernel. This can be changed of course. 

Well, this is the interface they have between Linux and their code. 

How do they do NBMA via sockets for example? Netlink is not helpful in
that case.
why dont you forward this to them?


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