On Monday 31 July 2006 14:30, you wrote: > (This is not directed at Christophe, or anyone in particular...) > > <rant> > > Am I the only one that thinks that our handling of LAN L2 stuff > is at best a little "too" flexible (and at worst a collection of > nasty hacks)? > > I mean, do we really need both the ability to bond multiple vlan > interfaces AND the ability to have vlan interfaces on top of a bond? > How many people really appreciate the subtle(?) differences? > > Then throw bridging into the mix! If I'm using VLANs and bonds in > a bridged environment, do I bridge the bonds, or bond the bridges?
In all honesty, you cannot bond bridges :-p > Do the VLANs come before the bonds? after the bridges? or somewhere > in-between? Do all these combinations even work together? Who has > the definitive answer (besides the code itself)? > > I have no doubt that there are plenty of opportunities for cleverness > here (and no doubt dragons too). I just doubt that most of them > are worth the complexities introduced by our current collection of > "transparently" stackable pseudo-drivers and strategically placed hacks > (e.g. skb_bond). All that, and it still isn't clear to me how we > can cleanly accomodate 802.1s (which adds VLAN awareness to bridging). > > Do we hold the view that our L2 code is on par with the rest of > our code? Is there an appetite for a clean-up? Or is it just me? A vlan capable bridge with trunk ports and access ports would be nice :-p I think the current code is nice. You need it to properly support virtualization and I find it very useful where I work to have this option. Regards, Christophe - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
