Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 15 May 2001 15:49:44 -0700 | From | David Brownell <> | Subject | Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants |
| |
> > > I couldn't agree with you more. It gives me headaches at work. One note, > > > their is a except to the eth0 thing. USB to USB networking. It uses usb0, > > > etc. I personally which they use eth0. > > > > USB to USB networking cables aren't ethernet. > > I'm talking about a wireless connection. ipaq USB cradle to PC.
Sounds rather wire-ful to me ... :)
It's not an Ethernet, which is why it doesn't masquerade as one. At least, not more than necessary to interop with at least one set of Win32 drivers. (And one hopes, more in the future.)
Until there's some way that network interfaces can expose more information to sysadmin tools, it seems smarter to set things up so they can't confuse USB and Ethernet links. Scripts can "know" the various differences, and accomodate more. One example that's come up: an MTU closer to two USB 1.1 frames will give better throughput at negligible cost, other than precluding some bridging setups involving N-BaseT.
- Dave
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |