Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 23:58:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Jaye Mathisen <mrcpu@internetcds.com> To: Modred <modred@ns1.antisocial.net> Cc: Vincent Poy <vince@venus.GAIANET.NET>, sthaug@nethelp.no, leifn@neland.dk, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: poor ethernet performance? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9907202356040.16718-100000@schizo.cdsnet.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9907202043160.5748-100000@ns1.antisocial.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.9907202356040.16718-100000>