From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jul 20 18:49: 2 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.antisocial.net (ns1.antisocial.net [208.10.211.34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E71FB14F54 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:48:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from modred@ns1.antisocial.net) Received: from localhost (modred@localhost) by ns1.antisocial.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA05760; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 20:47:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 20:47:32 -0500 (EST) From: Modred To: Vincent Poy Cc: sthaug@nethelp.no, leifn@neland.dk, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: poor ethernet performance? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote: > No idea but it seems like the people who sold the Cisco switches > atleast claimed that each port is supposed to be secure to prevent packet > sniffing by people on the other ports... Perhaps they were touting 'VLANs'? I can see seperate/many, logical networks configured across one/few physical ports via a VLAN being relatively secure (VLANs can consist of a single port, and each VLAN is it's own subnet). (Is this freebsd-net-ish?) Later, --mike To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message