netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!

To: cw@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!)
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 04:01:04 -0800
Cc: david@xxxxxxxxx, greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20010108011308.A2575@metastasis.f00f.org> (message from Chris Wedgwood on Mon, 8 Jan 2001 01:13:08 +1300)
References: <20010107162905.B1804@metastasis.f00f.org> <Pine.LNX.4.10.10101070220410.4173-100000@Huntington-Beach.Blue-Labs.org> <20010108011308.A2575@metastasis.f00f.org>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
   Date:   Mon, 8 Jan 2001 01:13:08 +1300
   From: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>

   OK, I'm a liar -- bind does handle this. Cool.

Standard BSD allows it, what do you expect :-)

   This is good news, because it means there is a precedent for multiple
   addresses on a single interface so we can kill the <ifname>:<n>
   syntax in favor of the above which is cleaner of more accurately
   represents what is happening.

If this is really true, 2.5.x is an appropriate time to make
this, no sooner.

Later,
David S. Miller
davem@xxxxxxxxxx

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