| To: | Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!) |
| From: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 7 Jan 2001 11:56:26 -0500 (EST) |
| Cc: | Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20010107162905.B1804@metastasis.f00f.org> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Chris Wedgwood wrote: > That said, if this was done -- how would things like routing daemons > and bind cope? I dont know of any routing daemons that are taking advantage of the alias interfaces today. This being said, i think that the fact that a lot of protocols that need IP-ization are coming up eg VLANs; you should see a good use for this. Out of curiosity for the VLAN people, how do you work with something like Zebra? One could have the route daemon take charge of management of these devices, a master device like "eth0" and a attached device like "vlan0". They both share the same ifindex but different have labels. Basically, i dont think there would be a problem. cheers, jamal |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission, Alan Cox |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission, Matti Aarnio |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!), David Ford |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!), Gleb Natapov |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |