| To: | gleb@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ??? |
| From: | Rob Walker <rob@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 2 Jun 2000 11:53:17 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | rob@xxxxxxxxxxx, buytenh@xxxxxxx, hadi@xxxxxxxxxx, greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, gleb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <3937EA35.423CB3C8@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <Pine.GSO.4.20.0006020741140.13652-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0006021439170.19298-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <14647.58672.343104.432906@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3937EA35.423CB3C8@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | rob@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
>>>>> On Fri, 02 Jun 2000 17:09:09 +0000, Gleb Natapov >>>>> <gleb@xxxxxxxxxxx> said: Gleb> Rob Walker wrote: >> Gleb> <snip> >> Why should VLANs not be fake devices? How are they different from >> aliased interfaces? Gleb> Not so good example IMHO. Aliased interfaces are deprecated ;) well, that shows what I know. :-) rob |
| Previous by Date: | Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???, Gleb Natapov |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???, Jeff Barrow |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???, Gleb Natapov |
| Next by Thread: | Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???, Jeff Barrow |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |