[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???
From: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 08:21:34 -0700
Cc: Mitchell Blank Jr <mitch@xxxxxxxxxx>, Andrey Savochkin <saw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, rob@xxxxxxxxxxx, buytenh@xxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, gleb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Organization: Candela Technologies
References: <Pine.GSO.4.20.0006072056240.25240-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
jamal wrote:

> I dont think if i would call both VLANS "eth0"; VLANS would be just
> circuits on top of eth0.
> I would think something like VLAN would require its own config
> tool. ifconfig is probably not the best tool to configure VLANS
> and definetly no close to a swiss army knife; pointing to ifconfig or
> route as reason to set a vlan as a device is a bad excuse.
> 'nuf said.
> Here's what i would have done:

At this point, I don't think anyone is going to be changing their opinions
on the way things should be done.  Please feel free to take either of the
VLAN patches already written and write your own using your ideas.  When
you have working code to show, then we may be in a better position to
evaluate your ideas.

In the mean time, I will (sometime relatively soon), have some patches to
allow for fast lookups of devices, if no one beats me to it.

If they never go into the kernel proper because of the blasphemy of too
many devices, so be it, but I'm hoping that with benchmarks to prove
performance does not degrade, and a patch that touches little of the
rest of the kernel, and virtually nothing in user space, it will be
seriously considered for the 2.5 timeframe, if not sooner.


Ben Greear (greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Author of ScryMUD: 4444        (Released under GPL)     

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