| To: | unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission |
| From: | David Ford <david@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 07 Jan 2001 18:19:24 -0800 |
| Cc: | Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Organization: | Blue Labs |
| References: | <E14FKDI-00033e-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Alan Cox wrote: > > Um, what about people running their box as just a VLAN router/firewall? > > That seems to be one of the principle uses so far. Actually, in that case > > both VLAN and IP traffic would come through, so it would be a tie if VLAN > > came first, but non-vlan traffic would suffer worse. > > Why would someone filter between vlans when any node on each vlan can happily > ignore the vlan partitioning ports 137-139 blather. -d
|
| Previous by Date: | [PLEASE-TESTME] Zerocopy networking patch, 2.4.0-1, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: routable interfaces WAS( Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup(DoesNOTmeet Linus' sumission policy!), Ben Greear |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission, Matti Aarnio |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission, Christopher E. Brown |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
