| To: | Andrey Savochkin <saw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ??? |
| From: | Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 6 Jun 2000 21:09:51 +0200 (MEST) |
| Cc: | Mitchell Blank Jr <mitch@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, rob@xxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20000605102627.A8473@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, Andrey Savochkin wrote: > I think that the current VLAN implementation slightly abuses the > notion of device. And it doesn't relate to the number of devices and > the efficiency of search algorithms. The current VLAN implementation > is a pure packet-mangling code. It misses one of the most important > properties of network devices - flow control. Any code that doesn't > provide flow control isn't a device, but a code just manipulating of > packet contents. >From this I may conclude that current (2.3) bridging is broken too as it works as a device? greetings, Lennert |
| Previous by Date: | Re: mail problems (was Re: slow ...), kuznet |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???, Lennert Buytenhek |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???, Ben Greear |
| Next by Thread: | Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???, Andrey Savochkin |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |