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 in any order you want. In other words the hooks for doing so exist (albeit in some limited way[1]). Practically, some of the topologies of interconnected netdevices dont make a lot of sense. The danger is in restricting how the stacking happens and overlooking some future creative use. Safer to let the user own the policy and configure any way they want aka "shoot themselves in the foot". > 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). 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). cheers, jamal - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
