From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Jul 21 0:26:14 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mail-01.cdsnet.net (mail-01.cdsnet.net [206.107.16.35]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E645F14E77 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 00:26:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mrcpu@internetcds.com) Received: (qmail 5296 invoked from network); 21 Jul 1999 06:58:43 -0000 Received: from schizo.cdsnet.net (204.118.244.32) by mail.cdsnet.net with SMTP; 21 Jul 1999 06:58:43 -0000 Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 23:58:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Jaye Mathisen X-Sender: mrcpu@schizo.cdsnet.net To: Modred Cc: Vincent Poy , 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 Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but since switches forward packets selectively per port, I would think it would be hard to sniff packets on any port, w/o administrative access to the switch to tell it to mirror data to a different port. ie, if I'm plugged into port 1, I can't see traffic on a switch on port 2 except for broadcast traffic... 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). > > (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 > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message