On 03/25/09 12:30, James Carlson wrote: > Girish Moodalbail writes: > >> bash-3.2# dladm show-link >> LINK CLASS MTU STATE PROMISC OVER >> e1000g0 phys 1501 up off -- >> e1000g1 phys 1502 up on -- >> > > That (plus or minus some column alignment) seems fine. > > How will this work with the various sorts of virtual interfaces and > VLANs? >
See below. > I assume that if someone puts a regular link into promiscuous mode, > then all of the regular VNICs (including those inside a zone) are in > promiscuous mode. No, they would not be in promiscuous mode. The VNIC's would be in promiscuous mode only if a DLPI application enables it using dlpi_promiscon() with DL_PROMISC_PHYS flag. So, we do not register VNIC's promiscuous call back function if the NIC is put in promiscuous mode. > But do VLANs appear as "in promiscuous mode" if the > underlying interface is set that way? After all, listeners on the > underlying interface can see the VLAN traffic. > Since snv_105, VLAN's are implemented as VNIC's so as per explanation before VLAN's wouldn't be in promiscuous mode if the underlying NIC is put on promiscuous mode. > If a VNIC is in promiscuous mode, is the underlying link marked that > way as well even though no clients of the underlying link are using it > that way? Yes, the underlying link will be marked promiscuous because without making the underlying NIC promiscuous the VNIC's would not get all the packets. > Does putting one VNIC into promiscuous mode also put the > others on that same underlying link into promiscuous mode (as one can > listen to others)? > No, we don't. > Iterate the above questions for both VLANs and VLANs are no different than VNIC's. They work as specified above. > virtual drivers such as those used for Xen. > I have to look in to this. thanks ~Girish -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/brussels-dev/attachments/20090325/cf9e45e6/attachment.html>
