From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 03:04:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 03:04:16 -0400 Received: from apollo.nbase.co.il ([194.90.137.2]:34311 "EHLO apollo.nbase.co.il") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 03:04:07 -0400 Message-ID: <3B305A87.E4CAD52@nbase.co.il> Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 10:10:47 +0200 From: eran@nbase.co.il (Eran Man) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vlan@Scry.WANfear.com CC: "David S. Miller" , Dax Kelson , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Holger Kiehl , "vlan-devel (other)" , Lennert , Gleb Natapov Subject: Re: [VLAN] Re: Should VLANs be devices or something else? In-Reply-To: <3B2FCE0C.67715139@candelatech.com> <15151.55017.371775.585016@pizda.ninka.net> <3B2FDD62.EFC6AEB1@candelatech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ben Greear wrote: > > "David S. Miller" wrote: > > Conceptually, svr4 streams are a beautiful and elegant > > mechanism. :-) > > > > Technical implementation level concerns need to be considered > > as well as "does it look nice". > > I found it to be the easiest way to implement things. It allowed > me to not have to touch any of layer 3, and I did not have to patch > any user-space program like ip or ifconfig. > > I'm not even sure if the nay-sayers ever had another idea, they > just didn't like having lots of interfaces. Originally, there > were claims of inefficiency, but it seems that other than things > like 'ip' and ifconfig, there are no serious performance problems > I am aware of. There is the issue with netlink notification of large number of events. See the mail thread starting from: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/netdev/mail/netdev/msg01879.html