From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 02:12:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 02:12:35 -0400 Received: from lenin.nu ([192.31.21.154]:37906 "HELO lenin.nu") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 02:12:24 -0400 Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 23:12:12 -0700 From: "Peter C. Norton" To: Sander Steffann Cc: vlan@Scry.WANfear.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Holger Kiehl , "David S. Miller" , Lennert , Gleb Natapov Subject: Re: [VLAN] Should VLANs be devices or something else? Message-ID: <20010621231212.A20200@lenin.nu> In-Reply-To: <3B2FCE0C.67715139@candelatech.com> <004b01c0f959$af9d96c0$8e01a8c0@OFFICE> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <004b01c0f959$af9d96c0$8e01a8c0@OFFICE>; from steffann@nederland.net on Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 09:21:55AM +0200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I agree with the device vote. Also, if the interface to the vlan devices are similar enough to ethernet that the bonding driver can easily incorperate them, then you can get bonded (a.k.a. redundant) trunks for cheap. This would lead to linux becoming a more robust router in practice. -Peter On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 09:21:55AM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote: > Hi Ben & all, > > > Should VLANs be devices or some other thing? > > VLANs should be devices IMHO. It 'feels' right, and I think it's what most > (if not all) users expect them to be. > > Bye, > Sander. > > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- The 5 year plan: In five years we'll make up another plan. Or just re-use this one.