Anyone have any experience with a 4-port switch using the Intel
82559ER chipset? I've got 1.2-BETA-1-embedded up and running on a
piece of hardware with one of these embedded on the motherboard, and
it sees the entire switch as a single interface (fxp0, in this case).
Related dmesg follows:
fxp0
RB wrote:
it sees the entire switch as a single interface (fxp0, in this case).
This is correct as you are connected to a switch port (the internal).
As things stand, devices on separate ports are capable of communicating with
each other, but the traffic is unseen on fxp0.
Well, this is the
> As things stand, devices on separate ports are capable of communicating with
each other, but the traffic is unseen on fxp0.
Well, this is the normal behaviour of a switch...
Agreed - I was just more hoping it was implemented as a bridge instead
of as a simple port on the switch. The last OS
What was the OS that had the support that you suggested?
nb
On 6/17/07, RB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As things stand, devices on separate ports are capable of communicating
with each other, but the traffic is unseen on fxp0.
> Well, this is the normal behaviour of a switch...
Agreed - I
/suggested/expected/
On 6/17/07, Nick Buraglio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What was the OS that had the support that you suggested?
nb
On 6/17/07, RB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > As things stand, devices on separate ports are capable of communicating
with each other, but the traffic is
On 6/17/07, Nick Buraglio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What was the OS that had the support that you expected?
A crufty blend of only the finest proprietary software, based on
VxWorks. x86 architecture.
RB
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 11:23:29 -0500, RB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > As things stand, devices on separate ports are capable of communicating
>> > with each other, but the traffic is unseen on fxp0.
>> Well, this is the normal behaviour of a switch...
>
>Agreed - I was just more hoping it was im
You can probably get the IC part number for the switch by visual inspection and
possibly a data sheet through Google. The controllers I am familiar with even
have configurable limited VLAN support.
Seems it's a Broadcom BCM5325; since it had an adhered t-wing, I was
unwilling to disturb the glu
FWIW, OpenWRT has some utils built-in to deal with these chipsets, I
just don't have it working yet - robocfg. They've deprecated it in
favor of a kernel driver, but all it does is uses a header file from
Broadcom and twiddles some ioctls on the associated ethernet port
according to the magic val
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:32:35 -0500, RB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>FWIW, OpenWRT has some utils built-in to deal with these chipsets, I
>just don't have it working yet - robocfg. They've deprecated it in
>favor of a kernel driver, but all it does is uses a header file from
>Broadcom and twiddles
Are details on the Broadcom switch controllers openly available? I did not find
anything on their web site.
Nor did I, but the header file indicates it came from Broadcom:
https://svn.openwrt.org/openwrt/tags/kamikaze_7.06/package/switch/src/etc53xx.h
Relevant comment:
/*
* Broadcom Home Gat
11 matches
Mail list logo
