[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???
From: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 07:48:22 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mitchell Blank Jr <mitch@xxxxxxxxxx>, Andrey Savochkin <saw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, rob@xxxxxxxxxxx, buytenh@xxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Jes Sorensen <jes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <Pine.OSF.3.96-heb-2.07.1000610174812.19185A-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx

On Sat, 10 Jun 2000, Gleb Natapov wrote:

> > 
jamal> > Gleb, I am afraid i didnt understand you. You mean broken
jamal> > programs like DHCP?
> > 
Gleb > No, I mean IPV6, IPX, DECnet, appletalk etc.

This is a very strong statement that you make above. You have
to provide justification. The protocol type is still available on the
header. how is any of the above protocols broken? 

On 11 Jun 2000, Jes Sorensen wrote:

Jes> Broad support for as much as possible is good, but limiting support 
Jes> for the mainstream in order to improve support for something broken
Jes> is wrong.

Jes just hit it on the head above. Infact i am begining to believe that
even if you could look up the device in one lookup, always, the
architecture being used is _wrong_.


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