From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sowmini Varadhan Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/5] net: L2 only interfaces Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:44:47 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1440543015-14693-1-git-send-email-f.fainelli@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: netdev , David Miller , andrew@lunn.ch, linux@roeck-us.net, =?UTF-8?B?SmnFmcOtIFDDrXJrbw==?= , sfeldma@gmail.com To: Florian Fainelli Return-path: Received: from mail-io0-f170.google.com ([209.85.223.170]:36298 "EHLO mail-io0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751798AbbHYXos (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Aug 2015 19:44:48 -0400 Received: by iodv127 with SMTP id v127so206596765iod.3 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:44:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1440543015-14693-1-git-send-email-f.fainelli@gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote: > Hi all, > > This patch series implements a L2 only interface concept which basically denies > any kind of IP address configuration on these interfaces, but still allows them > to be used as configuration end-points to keep using ethtool and friends. > This is a very interesting idea. A few questions/thoughts: will there be any eventual restrictions on which types interfaces can be L2_ONLY? Ideally, it should be possible to let interfaces wink in/out of L2 only state administratively (as can be done on a typical router, after unwinding existing config as needed) I'm assuming something will prevent an L2-only interface from being part of a vrf. --Sowmini