Girish Moodalbail writes: > On 03/25/09 12:30, James Carlson wrote: > > 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.
I don't think I understand the usage model entirely, then. Is the idea of showing "promiscuous mode" intended to allow the administrator to know whether there's someone watching? If so, then I'd expect the state to show whether there's any promiscuous client anywhere in the system that can snoop in on that link's traffic. If it's not for that purpose, then how does the administrator use this new flag? What does it tell him, and what could he do with that information? > > 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. True ... but I'm asking about the state of the visible flag, not the internal implementation details. If this is supposed to just show whether there's a promiscuous listener on a given link, then why would the underlying NIC show this flag set when there *isn't* such a listener on that link? > > virtual drivers such as those used for Xen. > > > I have to look in to this. OK. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
