On Tuesday 01 August 2006 19:21, you wrote:
John W. Linville wrote:
I'm just not sure that cleverness is worth the headache, especially
since the most clever things usually only work by accident...
Or, work by solid, modular design and small tweaks!
Point taken. But stashing little
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 09:39:08PM -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 08:30 -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
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?
/rant
If you made it this
On Tue, 2006-01-08 at 08:08 -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
[..]
There is no doubt that we need to be able to do all three (vlan,
bridge, bond) at once. I'm just not convinced we need to support
stacking them in every conceivable order.
In theory there should be no issues stacking netdevices
Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
On Tue, 2006-01-08 at 08:08 -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
[..]
There is no doubt that we need to be able to do all three (vlan,
bridge, bond) at once. I'm just not convinced we need to support
stacking them in every conceivable order.
In theory there should be no
John W. Linville wrote:
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 09:39:08PM -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 08:30 -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
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?
/rant
If
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 08:33:34AM -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
On Tue, 2006-01-08 at 08:08 -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
And, I think that a
reconsideration of all three functions as a group could lead to
better/cleaner functionality with easier support for extension (e.g.
802.1s).
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 09:10:06AM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
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
John W. Linville wrote:
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 09:10:06AM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
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
John W. Linville wrote:
I'm just not sure that cleverness is worth the headache, especially
since the most clever things usually only work by accident...
Or, work by solid, modular design and small tweaks!
Point taken. But stashing little hacks in the networking core for
specific virtual
Ben Greear [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Basically, my point is that
if VLANs are true devices, they will just work with all of the
user-space protocols
and they will easily handle abstractions such as bridges, (multiple)
IP addresses, MAC addresses,
net-filter, and all the rest.
AOL mode I
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 10:15:40AM +0200, Christophe Devriese wrote:
If you bond 2 vlan subinterfaces, the patch is not necessary at all. In that
case also the source device will be changed from eth0.vlan to bondx. So
that's correct behavior no ?
In the second case, you create vlan subifs
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
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 08:30 -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 10:15:40AM +0200, Christophe Devriese wrote:
If you bond 2 vlan subinterfaces, the patch is not necessary at all. In
that
case also the source device will be changed from eth0.vlan to bondx. So
that's
13 matches
Mail list logo
