[lkml]   [2001]   [Jan]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
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.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:52    [W:0.099 / U:1.412 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site