| To: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ??? |
| From: | Mitchell Blank Jr <mitch@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 31 May 2000 18:19:55 -0700 |
| Cc: | Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.GSO.4.20.0005312016180.10393-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from hadi@xxxxxxxxxx on Wed, May 31, 2000 at 08:26:28PM -0400 |
| References: | <3933777C.E562388C@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.GSO.4.20.0005312016180.10393-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
> Your architecture of maintaining a device per VLAN does not scale; > (as you might have heard from your numerous attempts to change device > lookups). Is it just impossible to make this scale in 2.5? There are other things which could require large numbers of network devices (like large-scale PPPoA/PPPoE termination), it would be nice to support them. > What is the specific reason that you insist on mapping a VLAN to a device? > Have you thought of using a VLAN lookup table instead? How would you implement IP filtering on each VLAN then? -Mitch |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???, jamal |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] eepro100 device name <-> pci bus/slot/func mapping, Jeff Garzik |
| Previous by Thread: | 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???, jamal |
| Next by Thread: | Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???, Ben Greear |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |