| To: | Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ??? |
| From: | Jeff Barrow <jeffb@xxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 2 Jun 2000 14:41:07 -0500 (CDT) |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <3937EA35.423CB3C8@nbase.co.il> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Aliased interfaces may be depreciated, but we still require them for our nameserver (without the aliased interfaces, bind doesn't bind to all the IP addresses) True, a newer version of bind might work properly; haven't tried that. It was more important that bind WORK quickly, and using ip aliasing fixed the problem QUICKLY. On Fri, 2 Jun 2000, Gleb Natapov wrote: > Rob Walker wrote: > > > <snip> > > Why should VLANs not be fake devices? How are they different from > > aliased interfaces? > > Not so good example IMHO. Aliased interfaces are deprecated ;) > > > > > rob > > -- > Gleb. > |
| Previous by Date: | Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???, Rob Walker |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Slow TCP connection between linux and wince, Aki M Laukkanen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???, Rob Walker |
| Next by Thread: | Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???, Ben Greear |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |