| To: | greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: VLAN patches |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 05 Oct 2002 22:05:49 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | Bjorn.Andersson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <3D9FBCB1.9080904@candelatech.com> |
| References: | <3D9F3D13.3080904@candelatech.com> <20021005.211753.25232925.davem@redhat.com> <3D9FBCB1.9080904@candelatech.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2002 21:31:45 -0700 As someone mentioned, vlan of 0 may be used to do a priority-only type of VLAN. I don't know how much this makes sense though... If we do decide to restrict it, the right place to restrict is in the creation clause, not the deletion code, as exists now. I think we should, please submit a patch which denies it on both config and delete. My most recent reading of 802.1q made it very clear that VID 0 is special and should not be assigned to any interface. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: VLAN patches, Ben Greear |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: VLAN patches, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: VLAN patches, Ben Greear |
| Next by Thread: | Re: VLAN patches, jamal |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |