Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:23:16 -0700 Received: from zada.math.leidenuniv.nl ([132.229.231.3]:40708 "EHLO zada.math.leidenuniv.nl") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:22:50 -0700 Received: from mara.math.leidenuniv.nl (IDENT:buytenh@mara.math.leidenuniv.nl [132.229.232.80]) by zada.math.leidenuniv.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA29662; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 22:20:56 +0200 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 22:20:56 +0200 (MEST) From: Lennert Buytenhek X-Sender: buytenh@mara.math.leidenuniv.nl To: Andi Kleen cc: Andrey Savochkin , Mitchell Blank Jr , Ben Greear , rob@valinux.com, netdev@oss.sgi.com, Gleb Natapov , jamal Subject: Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ??? In-Reply-To: <20000607010120.A4334@fred.muc.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-netdev@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;netdev-outgoing On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > The current kernel infrastructure for packet mangling may still need > > > some adjustments, but it at least exists. I'm encouraging to consider > > > VLAN implementation as just a netfilter module. > > > > "All the world is an IP net"? How should I run IPX over my VLANs then? > > Netfilter is not an IP only thing. It is a generic framework for > packet mangling. Although currently only IPv4 and IPv6 netfilter > implementations exist it would be no big problem to add ``raw > ethernet'' netfilter hooks. Raw ethernet netfilter hooks, as are IPX netfilter hooks by the way, are currently a nice blue cloud in the sky. As we're getting into the architectural purity business anyway, does it make a whole lot of sense to netfilter on two different protocol levels? greetings, Lennert