[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???
From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 01:01:20 +0200
Cc: Andrey Savochkin <saw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mitchell Blank Jr <mitch@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, rob@xxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0006062106130.17520-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from Lennert Buytenhek on Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 09:21:39PM +0200
References: <20000605102627.A8473@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0006062106130.17520-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 09:21:39PM +0200, Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
> 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?

Netfilter is not an IP only thing. It is a generic framework for 
packet mangling. Although currently only IPv4 
and IPv6 netfilter implementations exist it would be no big problem
to add ``raw ethernet'' netfilter hooks.


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

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