[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???

To: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 13:48:18 -0400
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 31 May 2000 20:26:28 EDT." <Pine.GSO.4.20.0005312016180.10393-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> "jamal" == jamal  <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
    jamal> Your architecture of maintaining a device per VLAN does not scale;
    jamal> (as you might have heard from your numerous attempts to change device
    jamal> lookups). 
    jamal> What is the specific reason that you insist on mapping a VLAN to a 

  It is a nice abtraction. It has known interfaces (ifconfig, netstat, route).

    jamal> Have you thought of using a VLAN lookup table instead? 

  I agree... But, what do the interfaces look like for this?
    jamal> cheers,
    jamal> jamal

    jamal> I am only asking because i think that sooner than later we need to 
    jamal> 802.1p/q in the kernel and your current scheme is problematic. 
    jamal> BTW, it seems there is another 802.1p/q project at sourceforge; 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>