On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Ben Greear wrote:
> Hrm, what if they just made each IP-SEC interface a net_device? If they
> are a routable entity, with it's own IP address, it starts to look a lot
> like an interface/net_device.
As in my response to Matti, i thing a netdevice is a generalized link
Sandy Harris wrote:
>
> jamal wrote:
>
> > > What problem does this fix?
> > >
> > > If you are mucking with the ifindex, you may be affecting many places
> > > in the rest of the kernel, as well as user-space programs which use
> > > ifindex to bind to raw devices.
> >
> > I am talking about
jamal wrote:
> > What problem does this fix?
> >
> > If you are mucking with the ifindex, you may be affecting many places
> > in the rest of the kernel, as well as user-space programs which use
> > ifindex to bind to raw devices.
>
> I am talking about 2.5 possibilities now that 2.4 is out. I
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> And what about bonding device? What major number should they use?
Would that include several ifindeces?
use standards. 802.3ad(?). Didnt Intel release some code on this or
are they still playing the big bad corporation? Normaly standards will
take
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 01:29:51PM -0500, jamal wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Ben Greear wrote:
>
> > > My thought was to have the vlan be attached on the interface ifa list and
> > > just give it a different label since it is a "virtual interface" on top
> > > of the "physical interface".
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Ben Greear wrote:
> > My thought was to have the vlan be attached on the interface ifa list and
> > just give it a different label since it is a "virtual interface" on top
> > of the "physical interface". Now that you mention the SNMP requirement,
> > maybe an idea of
jamal wrote:
> A very good reason why you would want them to have separate ifindices.
> Essentially, vlans have to be separate interfaces today. Other "virtual"
> interfaces such as aliased devices are not going to work with route
> daemons today since they dont meet this requirement.
>
> Not
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > One could have the route daemon take charge of management of these
> > devices, a master device like "eth0" and a attached device like "vlan0".
> > They both share the same ifindex but different have labels.
> > Basically, i dont think there would be
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Gleb Natapov wrote:
One could have the route daemon take charge of management of these
devices, a master device like "eth0" and a attached device like "vlan0".
They both share the same ifindex but different have labels.
Basically, i dont think there would be a
jamal wrote:
A very good reason why you would want them to have separate ifindices.
Essentially, vlans have to be separate interfaces today. Other "virtual"
interfaces such as aliased devices are not going to work with route
daemons today since they dont meet this requirement.
Not to rain
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Ben Greear wrote:
My thought was to have the vlan be attached on the interface ifa list and
just give it a different label since it is a "virtual interface" on top
of the "physical interface". Now that you mention the SNMP requirement,
maybe an idea of major:minor
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 01:29:51PM -0500, jamal wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Ben Greear wrote:
My thought was to have the vlan be attached on the interface ifa list and
just give it a different label since it is a "virtual interface" on top
of the "physical interface". Now that you
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Gleb Natapov wrote:
And what about bonding device? What major number should they use?
Would that include several ifindeces?
use standards. 802.3ad(?). Didnt Intel release some code on this or
are they still playing the big bad corporation? Normaly standards will
take care
Sandy Harris wrote:
jamal wrote:
What problem does this fix?
If you are mucking with the ifindex, you may be affecting many places
in the rest of the kernel, as well as user-space programs which use
ifindex to bind to raw devices.
I am talking about 2.5 possibilities now
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Ben Greear wrote:
Hrm, what if they just made each IP-SEC interface a net_device? If they
are a routable entity, with it's own IP address, it starts to look a lot
like an interface/net_device.
As in my response to Matti, i thing a netdevice is a generalized link
layer
15 matches
Mail list logo
