netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???
From: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 11:14:58 -0700
Cc: Mitchell Blank Jr <mitch@xxxxxxxxxx>, rob@xxxxxxxxxxx, buytenh@xxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, gleb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Organization: Candela Technologies
References: <Pine.GSO.4.20.0006040924390.16882-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
jamal wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 3 Jun 2000, Mitchell Blank Jr wrote:

> > ...or thousands of routes, or gigabytes of RAM, etc... do you suggest we
> > drop kernel support for those too?  It's all a matter of finding an
> > algorithm that scales.
> 
> We dont wanna start changing the whole network stack just so that
> we can fit in VLANS, do we?

Excellent point.  I do *NOT* want to change the whole network stack, and
I don't want to change all of the user-space programs (tcpdump, ip,
ifconfig, arp, route...) either...

Note that I have changed none of these, with the exception of dhcpd (and Gleb & 
Co's
solution of tweaking the ethernet header fixes the dhcpd problem anyway), and 
everything
just seems to work!

Perhaps we could put this whole performance thing to rest if someone could
add 500 or so VLANs to a box and do some agregate throughput numbers or 
something?

A gigabit NIC would probably be best because that should take the link speed out
of the picture?  Someone send me two and I'll do the benchmark :)

If there are hits, then 500 devices should make it appearant...

Ben

-- 
Ben Greear (greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)  http://www.candelatech.com
Author of ScryMUD:  scry.wanfear.com 4444        (Released under GPL)
http://scry.wanfear.com               http://scry.wanfear.com/~greear

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