Jes Sorensen wrote:
> >>>>> "Ben" == Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Ben> So just because you don't see a use for it means everyone else
> Ben> should be denied the use of it??? Gleb's argument is valid
> Ben> whether or not IPX exists, because other, so-far-unthought-of,
> Ben> protocols may be created, and they would have the same problem
> Ben> that IPX would now.
> Try to take a look at how IPX behaves on the wire before commenting -
> the people who designed it need serious larting.
That is irrelavent to the people who need to use it to fit in with
an existing network architecture. I also hear that many Windows games like
to use IPX because it's faster on a local network, but I don't know
if that is true or not.
> Ben> Broad support for almost every protocol known is one of the very
> Ben> best features of Linux. Doing anything to make that less true
> Ben> would make Linux less useful to the rest of us.
> Broad support for as much as possible is good, but limiting support
> for the mainstream in order to improve support for something broken is
True, but no one is trying to do that. Find a way that a netfilter
is inherently more efficient than device-per-VLAN and tell us about it. Or
implement it, I think Jamal is gonna start working on that...
Remember that linear searching of the device list will be hashed shortly, and
is, if you need to search the entire device list, say for TCP/IP routing
information, then you'll have to search all of the VLAN device-let structures
too because they hold routing information.
Ben Greear (greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) http://www.candelatech.com
Author of ScryMUD: scry.wanfear.com 4444 (Released under GPL)