>>>>> "Ben" == Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Ben> Jes Sorensen wrote:
>> Try to take a look at how IPX behaves on the wire before
>> commenting - the people who designed it need serious larting.
Ben> That is irrelavent to the people who need to use it to fit in
Ben> with an existing network architecture. I also hear that many
Ben> Windows games like to use IPX because it's faster on a local
Ben> network, but I don't know if that is true or not.
I would pretty much claim that to be rubbish since it is quite easy to
fill a 100baseT segment with TCP.
>> Broad support for as much as possible is good, but limiting
>> support for the mainstream in order to improve support for
>> something broken is wrong.
Ben> True, but no one is trying to do that. Find a way that a
Ben> netfilter implementation is inherently more efficient than
Ben> device-per-VLAN and tell us about it. Or implement it, I think
Ben> Jamal is gonna start working on that...
I'll be happy to wait for Jamal to do the work, I still consider
VLAN's to be the stupidest invention in the network world since the
OSI protocol stack.
Ben> Remember that linear searching of the device list will be hashed
Ben> shortly, and the truth is, if you need to search the entire
Ben> device list, say for TCP/IP routing information, then you'll have
Ben> to search all of the VLAN device-let structures too because they
Ben> hold routing information.
Having a large device list may end up causing other problems in other
parts of the stack. There is no reason for the proper devices to
suffer because you want to glue in vlans on top of it.