From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jul 20 20: 2: 3 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from venus.GAIANET.NET (venus.GAIANET.NET [207.211.200.51]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E74EF15054 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 20:02:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from vince@venus.GAIANET.NET) Received: from localhost (vince@localhost) by venus.GAIANET.NET (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA42180; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 19:59:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from vince@venus.GAIANET.NET) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 19:59:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Vincent Poy To: Modred 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, Modred wrote: > 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). VLAN could be it... > (Is this freebsd-net-ish?) Ofcourse, remember the original discussion is ethernet performance between two FreeBSD boxes. Cheers, Vince - vince@MCESTATE.COM - vince@GAIANET.NET ________ __ ____ Unix Networking Operations - FreeBSD-Real Unix for Free / / / / | / |[__ ] GaiaNet Corporation - M & C Estate / / / / | / | __] ] Beverly Hills, California USA 90210 / / / / / |/ / | __] ] HongKong Stars/Gravis UltraSound Mailing Lists Admin /_/_/_/_/|___/|_|[____] To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message