netdev
[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: matthew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Matthew Geier)
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 06:58:00 +1000 (EST)
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0006062106130.17520-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> from "Lennert Buytenhek" at Jun 06, 2000 09:09:34 PM
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
> 
> > The current kernel infrastructure for packet mangling may still need
> > some adjustments, but it at least exists.  I'm encouraging to consider
> > VLAN implementation as just a netfilter module.
> 
> "All the world is an IP net"? How should I run IPX over my VLANs then?
> 

 I have a more than passing interest in the VLAN stuff as I have a network
that uses them. My campus is uses VLAN's to seperate the different users,
my faculty using 6 vlans to split the various units up. (Currently the trunks
are CISCO ISL, but the system is being upgraded to giga-bit trunks, that are
.1q)

 It is possible at some stage I would like to run a server with a foot in
at least 4 VLANs so that people accessing that server would not have a 
router hop. (And since AppleTalk (and IPX for other departments) is at
least as important as TCP/IP no layer 3 switch vendor is game, and I can't
put that many AppleTalk stations in the one VLAN with out an AppleTalk
broadcast meltdown....)

 Any VLAN implementation that doesn't allow me to fire up Samba and NetAtalk
have have the 2 programs just discover the interfaces and do the right
SMB broadcasting, and AppleTalk stuff on each, isn't actually any use. I
certainly wouldn't be trying to replicate the routing functions of the CISCO
RSM cards in the 2 central switching centres on my Campus.
 I just want applications to run...


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