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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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
