[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


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