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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
- Re: poor ethernet performance? sthaug
- Re: poor ethernet performance? Vincent Poy
- Re: poor ethernet performance? sthaug
- Re: poor ethernet performance? Vincent Poy
- Re: poor ethernet performance? sthaug
- Re: poor ethernet performance? Vincent Poy
- Re: poor ethernet performance? Modred
- Re: poor ethernet performance? Vincent Poy
- Re: poor ethernet performance? sthaug
- Re: poor ethernet performance? Vincent Poy
- Re: poor ethernet performance? Modred
- Re: poor ethernet performance? Vincent Poy
- Re: poor ethernet performance? Jaye Mathisen
- Re: poor ethernet performance? Matthew Dillon
- Re: poor ethernet performance? Vincent Poy
- Re: poor ethernet performance? sthaug
- Re: poor ethernet performance? Vincent Poy
- Re: poor ethernet performance? sthaug
- Re: poor ethernet performance? Vincent Poy
- Re: poor ethernet performance? sthaug
- Re: poor ethernet performance? Karl Pielorz