From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "John W. Linville" Subject: Re: Linville's L2 rant... -- Re: PATCH Fix bonding active-backup behavior for VLAN interfaces Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 12:52:23 -0400 Message-ID: <20060801165218.GF29208@tuxdriver.com> References: <44CA34D0.1070507@candelatech.com> <44CA87C5.1060905@candelatech.com> <20060730.205032.130618331.davem@davemloft.net> <200607311015.40255.Christophe.Devriese@eurid.eu> <20060731123038.GA10138@tuxdriver.com> <1154396348.5170.43.camel@jzny2> <20060801120836.GA29208@tuxdriver.com> <1154435614.5170.111.camel@jzny2> <44CF7CDE.4080601@candelatech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: hadi@cyberus.ca, netdev@vger.kernel.org, David Miller , Christophe Devriese Return-path: Received: from ra.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.52]:45837 "EHLO ra.tuxdriver.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750827AbWHAQwh (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Aug 2006 12:52:37 -0400 To: Ben Greear Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <44CF7CDE.4080601@candelatech.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org 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 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