On 2011-04-21, Dan Stromberg <drsali...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 7:21 AM, Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> > wrote: >> On 2011-04-20, Dan Stromberg <drsali...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Dan Stromberg <drsali...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> I agree though that you're kind of pushing IP in a direction it wasn't >>>> intended to go. >>> >>> It just occurred to me: You might get some additional mileage out of >>> popping the network adapter into promiscuous mode. ?In fact, it Might >>> be necessary irrespective of the rest of your approach. >> >> The network adapter is already receiving all the packets I want to >> receive, so putting it into promiscuous mode would only increase the >> number of unwanted packets. > > I think tcpdump and tshark (was tethereal) will put the interface into > promiscuous mode so it can see more traffic;
It can (and by default does). I was using "-p" so it didn't. > on OSF/1 (Tru64), we had > to do this manually for said programs to see all that was possible > (barring the presence of a switch not repeating packets the way > routers and hubs would). * The packets were being sent to MAC address ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff, so the NIC does not have to be in promiscuous mode to receive them. * tcpdump saw them even when it doesn't put the NIC in promiscuous mode. * The kernel was seeing the packets because it was logging them as martians and discarding them (something I didn't notice until later). * Turning off reverse-path filtering in the TCP stack allowed the packets to be received as expected. -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! I was making donuts at and now I'm on a bus! gmail.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list