[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Andrey Savochkin <saw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???
From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:26:52 +0200
Cc: Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Mitchell Blank Jr <mitch@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, rob@xxxxxxxxxxx, buytenh@xxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, gleb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20000605154657.D10091@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from Andrey Savochkin on Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 05:57:16PM +0200
References: <3938611E.D074F254@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.GSO.4.20.0006030945230.15626-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20000603091818.B48132@xxxxxxxxxx> <20000605102627.A8473@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <393B56DD.34A83A7D@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20000605154657.D10091@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 05:57:16PM +0200, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
> Hello Gleb,
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 07:29:33AM +0000, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > As Mitchell said, will I be able to run OSPF between VLANs? I actually
> > run zebra ospfd on vlans. Zebra has a strong notion of device. It relies
> > on device up, device done, change ip and other messages from netlink.
> I do not know how Zebra works, but the design described by you looks very
> broken at the first glance.  If you run routing managements software on your
> system you should perform all kernel state changes only through this
> software.  Thus, the software do not need any kernel feedback about device/ip
> state except the confirmations of its own commands.

I don't think it is broken. It seems to me that one of the design goals
of netlink was to make it possible for multiple routing daemons (including
the ``admin daemon'') to coexist nicely. Moving all policy into a big
monolithic program would look broken for me.


This is like TV. I don't like TV.

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