Thread (44 messages) 44 messages, 10 authors, 2006-08-20

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

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
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help