[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: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 07:18:45 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@xxxxxxx>, Andrey Savochkin <saw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mitchell Blank Jr <mitch@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, rob@xxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20000607010120.A4334@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx

On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, Andi Kleen wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 09:21:39PM +0200, Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
> 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.

Isnt packet type sufficient for this today? or are you talking about hooks
based in addition to things like src/dst MACs?

In regards to netlink and devices and the route daemons:
I agree that netlink would be the best for daemons to use for anything
that is routable.
[compare to some daemons (MERIT?) which used to/maybe still are polling
/proc ;->].

But does it have to be a _device_ to use netlink? i think not.


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