On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 08:30:12PM +0100, A.N.Kuznetsov wrote:
> > What's about VLANs, they can be handled as separate virtual devices
> > provided you have _couple_ of them. It the number is higher, they must
> > be clustered as single nbma interface via framing (i.e neighbour) level
> > or via tags in routing tables. The same thing is with MPLs.
> > That's why I strongly dislike the idea to create zillions of net_devices
> > and consider that approach to VLANs as stupid one. And this is reason
> > why hashing device list (being great in principle) is not considered
> > to be some really required feature.
>
> Is there any evidence that people really want to use hundreds of VLANs on a
> single box in practice?
>
We plan to use hundreds if not thousands, on our 2,5 Tbps, linux
controlled, MAN switch-router.
We may especially use VIDs as Client (or servce) identifier, for billing
purposes, once they have been aggegated on a single links past the really first
(typically only L2 switched) hop. Such machines will be used in Metropoles to
connect a _lot_ of people.
And I know that there is other hardware startup that plan to use Linux
on their high speed platform as well (we're not alone :-)
> If not (which looks likely) just using net_devices is fine I guess and
> keep it as simple as possible.
>
I can't wait to find the time to figure that one out..
> -Andi
> --
> This is like TV. I don't like TV.
Hey! I don't like TV either :-)
--
François Desloges
fd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
|