John W. Linville wrote: > > Al Boldi wrote: > > >Here specifically, ip/ifconfig is implemented upside-down requiring a > > >link/dev to exist for an address to be defined, in effect containing > > > layer 3 inside layer 2, when an address should be allowed to be > > > defined w/o a link/dev much like an app is allowed to be defined w/o > > > an address. > > > I think Al B.'s idea merits some consideration. I definitely think > we blur the distinctions between L2 and L3 a bit too much in places. > > Of course, patches would be helpful...
I am envisaging a complete decoupling of the current implementation to achieve OSI compliance. And that's not for the sake of OSI but for the sake of scalability. This means that it should be possible define a layer 3 network architecture completely independent of a layer 2 link architecture. This also means that we are free to choose means other than a layer 2 link to fulfill layer 3 requests and vice/versa. And it may open the door to many other things... due to scalability. Thanks! -- Al - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
