| To: | James Carlson <carlson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH, untested] Support for PPPOE on SMP |
| From: | Jamal Hadi <hadi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:18:20 -0400 (EDT) |
| Cc: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, paulus@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, fcusack@xxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <16122.53298.150512.793074@h006008986325.ne.client2.attbi.com> |
| References: | <20030625.143334.85380461.davem@redhat.com> <20030626035824.D68B62C147@lists.samba.org> <20030625.205941.41631020.davem@redhat.com> <16122.53298.150512.793074@h006008986325.ne.client2.attbi.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, James Carlson wrote: > David S. Miller writes: > If so, then that needs to be taken up with the manufacturer. That's a > rather severe design flaw that will prevent such a card from ever > being used for anything other than IP -- many other protocols *ASSUME* > that packets on a single wire cannot be reordered, including SNA, PPP > (!), and link aggregation, among others. > So what about packet being loss? Wouldnt that ensure reordering? And there is no such thing as a lossless wire. cheers, jamal PS:- Paulus i wasnt preaching getting rid of ppp/pppoe although its a nice thouhgt. More fix linux pppd and pppoe ;-> |
| Previous by Date: | [PATCH] Prefix List against 2.4.21, Krishna Kumar |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] IPV6: Fixed fragment check in ip6_output.c:ip6_fragment(), James Morris |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH, untested] Support for PPPOE on SMP, James Carlson |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH, untested] Support for PPPOE on SMP, James Carlson |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |