James Carlson wrote:
> For what it's worth (and having worked on the code in the now-distant
> past), I certainly agree with you at a high level. What you're
> describing is an "obvious" generalization of the exclusive stack
> concept. It was "obvious" enough that we actually discussed it
> inter
Jim Klimov wrote:
> 2012-06-11 18:19, Dan McDonald wrote:
>> The fundamental question is always: What problem are you really
>> trying to solve?
>
> Okay, I found another rationale beside performance and simplified
> intra-zone routing (though not as apparent as exclusive routing).
> It seems tha
2012-06-11 22:57, Robert Mustacchi wrote:
This isn't a problem. When you promiscuously sniff traffic on a VNIC
regardless of zone, you only get the following:
* unicast traffic with your zones MAC address
Okay, one problem less, maybe
* Broadcast and multicast traffic
This might expose some
2012-06-11 18:19, Dan McDonald wrote:
The fundamental question is always: What problem are you really trying to
solve?
Okay, I found another rationale beside performance and simplified
intra-zone routing (though not as apparent as exclusive routing).
It seems that the shared IP stack offer be
2012-06-11 18:19, Dan McDonald wrote:
2012-06-11 18:47, Sebastien Roy wrote:
DAN> The fundamental question is always: What problem are you really
trying to solve?
And as always (or often), it is a valid question.
Technically, there is no immediate problem that I'd solve only
this way, or, lik
