netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Jes Sorensen <jes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 16:15:02 +0000
Cc: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>, Mitchell Blank Jr <mitch@xxxxxxxxxx>, Andrey Savochkin <saw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, rob@xxxxxxxxxxx, buytenh@xxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Organization: NBase-Xyplex
References: <Pine.OSF.3.96-heb-2.07.1000610174812.19185A-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <d3og58ewmh.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <39433342.4A9E80CC@xxxxxxxxxxx> <d38zwc5j4z.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3943C086.930DF571@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <d3zoos42xe.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Jes Sorensen wrote:
> 
> >>>>> "Ben" == Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> Ben> So just because you don't see a use for it means everyone else
> Ben> should be denied the use of it???  Gleb's argument is valid
> Ben> whether or not IPX exists, because other, so-far-unthought-of,
> Ben> protocols may be created, and they would have the same problem
> Ben> that IPX would now.
> 
> Try to take a look at how IPX behaves on the wire before commenting -
> the people who designed it need serious larting.
> 

May be somebody wants to put IPX on separate VLAN because IPX behaves
this way and you don't want to give him such possibility ? :)

Seriously, I don't see how your last argument is relevant to the
discussion.

--
                        Gleb.

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