Re: Linville's L2 rant... -- Re: PATCH Fix bonding active-backup behavior for VLAN interfaces
From: John W. Linville <hidden>
Date: 2006-08-01 16:52:37
From: John W. Linville <hidden>
Date: 2006-08-01 16:52:37
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 09:10:06AM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
quoted
Agreed. I have some very strong opinions on this subject that i could share with you if you want. For example, IMO, I think it would be a lot reasonable to assume that a VLAN or VLANS are attributes of a netdevice (just like IP addresses or MAC addresses are).As might be expected, I feel that VLANs are much more useful as full-featured net devices. I do not believe it is worth decreasing functionality to try to 'clean up' the code.
In general, I agree that we shouldn't lose functionality. I'm curious as to what particularly functionality you fear would be lost if VLANs were not implemented the way they are now? Thanks, John -- John W. Linville linville@tuxdriver.com