[Top] [All Lists]

Re: routable interfaces

To: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: routable interfaces
From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 21:25:56 +0100
Cc: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200101151928.WAA12705@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 08:30:12PM +0100
References: <Pine.GSO.4.30.0101080642000.18916-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200101151928.WAA12705@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 08:30:12PM +0100, A.N.Kuznetsov wrote:
> What's about VLANs, they can be handled as separate virtual devices
> provided you have _couple_ of them. It the number is higher, they must
> be clustered as single nbma interface via framing (i.e neighbour) level
> or via tags in routing tables. The same thing is with MPLs.
> That's why I strongly dislike the idea to create zillions of net_devices
> and consider that approach to VLANs as stupid one. And this is reason
> why hashing device list (being great in principle) is not considered
> to be some really required feature.

Is there any evidence that people really want to use hundreds of VLANs on a 
single box in practice? 

If not (which looks likely) just using net_devices is fine I guess and
keep it as simple as possible. 

This is like TV. I don't like TV.

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