[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???
From: Andrey Savochkin <saw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:00:24 +0800
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: <20000606112652.A912@xxxxxxxxxxx>; from "Andi Kleen" on Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 11:26:52AM
References: <3938611E.D074F254@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.GSO.4.20.0006030945230.15626-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20000603091818.B48132@xxxxxxxxxx> <20000605102627.A8473@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <393B56DD.34A83A7D@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20000605154657.D10091@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20000606112652.A912@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Hi Andi,

On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 11:26:52AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 05:57:16PM +0200, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
> > 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.

OK, point taken.
But netfilter module may generate messages for routing daemons as well.

Best regards

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