From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Aug 12 3:35:47 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from axl.noc.iafrica.com (axl.noc.iafrica.com [196.31.1.175]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36B0C14FAD; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 03:35:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sheldonh@axl.noc.iafrica.com) Received: from sheldonh (helo=axl.noc.iafrica.com) by axl.noc.iafrica.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 11Es7N-0000Zu-00; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:29:53 +0200 From: Sheldon Hearn To: Niall Smart Cc: Cillian Sharkey , Doug White , questions@freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Various Questions In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:20:35 GMT." <37B2BC13.ECA642D0@pobox.com> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:29:53 +0200 Message-ID: <2225.934453793@axl.noc.iafrica.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:20:35 GMT, Niall Smart wrote: > But what happens if you write a program which does whatever ioctl is > required to unpromiscify an interface and run it on an unpromiscuous > interface, does it print a message to syslog even though promiscuous > mode was never enabled in the first place? Like I said, I seem to get the intended behaviour. vty1 -> start trafshow Aug 12 12:26:41 axl /kernel: xl0: promiscuous mode enabled vty2 -> start trafshow vty1 -> kill trafshow vty2 -> kill trafshow Aug 12 12:27:22 axl /kernel: xl0: promiscuous mode disabled :-) Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message