| To: | Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission |
| From: | Matti Aarnio <matti.aarnio@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 7 Jan 2001 19:32:13 +0200 |
| Cc: | Matti Aarnio <matti.aarnio@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <E14FIxT-0002ue-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 04:46:14PM +0000 |
| References: | <20010107173306.C25076@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <E14FIxT-0002ue-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 04:46:14PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > But talking between two vlans on the same physical lan you will go in and back > out via the switch and you wont So ? If your box is routing in between VLANs, you are using it wrong way, IMO. On the other hand, I could very well put clients in some building into an set where I have a switch with FE connection to router, and lots of 10BaseT ports to clients. Hard-limiting bandwith to said 10 Mbit. I use VLAN truncked systems mainly for network administration, for DHCP servers. /Matti Aarnio |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!), jamal |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!), Gleb Natapov |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission, Alan Cox |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission, Ben Greear |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |