Messages in this thread | | | From | Gleb Natapov <> | Date | Sun, 7 Jan 2001 19:37:57 +0200 |
| |
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 11:56:26AM -0500, jamal wrote: > > > On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Chris Wedgwood wrote: > > > That said, if this was done -- how would things like routing daemons > > and bind cope? > > I dont know of any routing daemons that are taking advantage of the > alias interfaces today. This being said, i think that the fact that a > lot of protocols that need IP-ization are coming up eg VLANs; you should > see a good use for this. Out of curiosity for the VLAN people, how do you > work with something like Zebra?
Without any problems. Zebra sees different VLAN interfaces as different networks and happily route between them.
> One could have the route daemon take charge of management of these > devices, a master device like "eth0" and a attached device like "vlan0". > They both share the same ifindex but different have labels. > Basically, i dont think there would be a problem. >
Theoretically it seems to be possible but it's much harder to do in Zebra than in kernel. And "eth0" shouldn't share ifindex with "vlan0" I don't think SNMP will be happy about that.
-- Gleb. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |