Re: poor ethernet performance?
On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote: > > > By reading the man page? > > The manpage doesn't really say anything about how to use ttcp... I don't think manpage useage is -hackers-esque. > There is no ttcp binary anywhere on either my -CURRENT, > 3.2-RELEASE and 3.1-RELEASE systems. Ever hear of ports? Or is 'how to use the ports collection' suddenly -hackers material? That, and .sig files that contain more relevant bits than the sender's posts... Oh, and I'd appreciate it if you could refrain from quoting this entire message to simply say, 'Interesting'... Thanks. Later, --mike To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: poor ethernet performance?
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote: > I'm not sure if it shows the mac address of the cisco's port or > the actual device connected to it... You see the MAC of the switch's port. It's been too long since I've played on a Catalyst... but what does 'sh arp' display? Any arp -> port -> host correlations? Good luck... :) > That's a option too... Only problem is that can take forever. :-) Yeah, I've noticed the 'sync-up time' takes quite awhile on a Catalyst running 100Mbps. Later, --mike To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: poor ethernet performance?
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 majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: poor ethernet performance?
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote: > Speaking about Layer 2 and layer 3. Does the Cisco Catalyst > 2924XL and the HP ProCurve 2424M and 4000M switches fall under Layer 3 or > just layer 2? Cisco, yes... HP, no clue (perhaps you could check their website). 2900XL Architecture Notes: http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/cisco/mkt/switch/cat/2900xl \ /tech/malbu_wp.htmhttp://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/cisco/mkt/ \ switch/cat/2900xl/tech/malbu_wp.htm 2900XL Management Guide: http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/c2900xl/ \ 29_35sa6/index.htm IOW, RTFM. Later, --mike To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: poor ethernet performance?
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote: > I'm not sure if it shows the mac address of the cisco's port or > the actual device connected to it... You see the MAC of the switch's port. It's been too long since I've played on a Catalyst... but what does 'sh arp' display? Any arp -> port -> host correlations? Good luck... :) > That's a option too... Only problem is that can take forever. :-) Yeah, I've noticed the 'sync-up time' takes quite awhile on a Catalyst running 100Mbps. Later, --mike To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: poor ethernet performance?
On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote: > > > By reading the man page? > > The manpage doesn't really say anything about how to use ttcp... I don't think manpage useage is -hackers-esque. > There is no ttcp binary anywhere on either my -CURRENT, > 3.2-RELEASE and 3.1-RELEASE systems. Ever hear of ports? Or is 'how to use the ports collection' suddenly -hackers material? That, and .sig files that contain more relevant bits than the sender's posts... Oh, and I'd appreciate it if you could refrain from quoting this entire message to simply say, 'Interesting'... Thanks. Later, --mike To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: poor ethernet performance?
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?
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote: > Speaking about Layer 2 and layer 3. Does the Cisco Catalyst > 2924XL and the HP ProCurve 2424M and 4000M switches fall under Layer 3 or > just layer 2? Cisco, yes... HP, no clue (perhaps you could check their website). 2900XL Architecture Notes: http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/cisco/mkt/switch/cat/2900xl \ /tech/malbu_wp.htmhttp://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/cisco/mkt/ \ switch/cat/2900xl/tech/malbu_wp.htm 2900XL Management Guide: http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/c2900xl/ \ 29_35sa6/index.htm IOW, RTFM. Later, --mike To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
