"David S. Miller" wrote:
>
> Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 19:21:51 -0700
> From: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> > That's why dev_alloc_name() is limited to two digits. And the
> > maximum is not 99, as people extending it to 999 think, but
> > 15. (When output of "ip link ls" still fits to one screen 8)8))
>
> I know of a box that is running 50 virtual IP interfaces. It seems
> to run just fine, so it seems the code supports more interfaces...
>
> Btw, I was planning on using source-routing (ie the ip command) in
> a PC with 20 real ethernet interfaces. Does this mean that the ip
> command will not support that?
>
> Please notice Alexey's smiley, and then reread his words.
>
> He isn't stating that it cannot function, he is saying it
> "does not function" in terms of practicality.
So, are large numbers of network devices just frowned on in general
(because one should use techniques to reduce the need for so many), or
would the rework of network device storage from a list to a hash make
large numbers of devices more palatable?
--
Daniel Rall <dlr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
|