jamal wrote:
>
> On Sat, 10 Jun 2000, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
> > >
> jamal> > Gleb, I am afraid i didnt understand you. You mean broken
> jamal> > programs like DHCP?
> > >
> >
> Gleb > No, I mean IPV6, IPX, DECnet, appletalk etc.
>
> This is a very strong statement that you make above. You have
> to provide justification. The protocol type is still available on the
> header. how is any of the above protocols broken?
I _never_ said they are broken! What I've said is that you will need to
add explicit support of VLANs in each one of these protocols (if I
understand correct you suggestion).
Answer me this question: are you going to change something in net/ipv4/
directory in your VLAN implementation?
If answer is yes, you implementation is broken IMO.
If answer is no, I really want to see your code.
>
> On 11 Jun 2000, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>
> Jes> Broad support for as much as possible is good, but limiting support
> Jes> for the mainstream in order to improve support for something broken
> Jes> is wrong.
>
What's limited in current implementation? We have equally good support
for all L3 protocols. Our code even doesn't depend on L3 protocol you
uses. This is the way it should be IMO.
> Jes just hit it on the head above. Infact i am begining to believe that
> even if you could look up the device in one lookup, always, the
> architecture being used is _wrong_.
>
Why? It seams to me that *you* don't provide any justification to your
claims.
Your only complain about existent implementation was theoretical
performance hit. What's wrong with the architecture if we have no
performance hit?
"Interface" is a nice abstraction with well defined API and good support
in user space (ifconfig, route, ipchains, etc). You want to create new
abstraction for VLANs, new set of user tools new API just because you
can. To have unique API for every little thing looks like Windows to me.
> cheers,
> jamal
--
Gleb.
|