Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:35:39 -0500 (EST) From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> To: "C. Stephen Gunn" <csg@dustdevil.waterspout.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 802.1Q VLANs Message-ID: <200002141935.OAA66996@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <20000214125527.A14822@dustdevil.waterspout.com> References: <Pine.OSF.4.21.0002031711230.1338-100000@haddock.euitt.upm.es> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0002031236160.479-100000@sasami.jurai.net> <200002031847.NAA62013@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <20000214002142.A12511@dustdevil.waterspout.com> <200002141625.LAA65769@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <20000214125527.A14822@dustdevil.waterspout.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<<On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:55:27 -0500, "C. Stephen Gunn" <csg@dustdevil.waterspout.com> said: > The only point of running the VLAN code (currently, note- priority > support would be nice as well) is to have the lower protocol layers > function as a VLAN aware bridge. Um, no. The point of running the VLAN code is to usefully interpret frames with VLAN tags on them. As the designer of the code in question, I think I can say that with some certainty. I originally considered implementing VLAN support through ``subinterfaces'' a la Sun, but decided that this would require a huge ABI change which we didn't want to make. > I believe it appropriate to make the lower protocol layers on FreeBSD > comply with the specification for a bridge. I do not, unless bridging is actually configured. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same wollman@lcs.mit.edu | O Siem / The fires of freedom Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200002141935.OAA66996>