From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Ceuleers Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH] net: RFC3069, private VLAN proxy arp support Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 19:59:43 +0100 Message-ID: <4B44DD9F.4020807@computer.org> References: <20100105155047.13309.79610.stgit@firesoul.comx.local> <4B4427CE.1040203@gmail.com> <1262771369.9474.80.camel@jdb-workstation> <20100106232231.5f454d53@opy.nosense.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: hawk@comx.dk, Eric Dumazet , "David S. Miller" , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Smith Return-path: Received: from mailrelay007.isp.belgacom.be ([195.238.6.173]:50091 "EHLO mailrelay007.isp.belgacom.be" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932620Ab0AFTE1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jan 2010 14:04:27 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20100106232231.5f454d53@opy.nosense.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Mark Smith wrote: > I can see value in that - you're forcing all traffic through the > upstream router for policy enforcement purposes, without having to have > point-to-point (simulated or otherwise) links between customers and the > router, and avoiding IP address waste by not using /30s. You're pretty > much making the ethernet a Non-broadcast Multi-Access link. Similar to what DSLAMs do... Jan