From owner-freebsd-net Mon Feb 14 11:35:35 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu [18.24.4.193]) by builder.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A6D04DA0 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:35:29 -0800 (PST) Received: (from wollman@localhost) by khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA66996; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:35:39 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from wollman) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:35:39 -0500 (EST) From: Garrett Wollman Message-Id: <200002141935.OAA66996@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> To: "C. Stephen Gunn" Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 802.1Q VLANs In-Reply-To: <20000214125527.A14822@dustdevil.waterspout.com> References: <200002031847.NAA62013@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <20000214002142.A12511@dustdevil.waterspout.com> <200002141625.LAA65769@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <20000214125527.A14822@dustdevil.waterspout.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org < 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