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 was
/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 unseen
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 implemented
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
