I have a similar setup to what Daniel specifies in
http://www.benzedrine.cx/ackpri.html but have a nagging question that
I haven't been able to find an answer for.
Why do you need to specify bandwidth on the parent queue in order for
the prioritizations to work correctly? Shouldn't the packet sch
> > switch1---| |--IDS
> > switch2---|--traffic aggregator---|--ntop
> > switch3---| |--ethereal
> > |--etc...
>
>
> You state that collisions on your hub, sitting in the "traffic
> aggregator" pos
> IIRC, specifying an address associated with that network interface
> will not re-write the destination IP in the IP packet, but instead
> just uses ARP to specify the destination MAC at the ether layer?
>
> Perhaps you could specify the outbound interface with the broadcast
> address, resulting
Thought I would reply to multiple responses in one post to cut down on noise...
> I do not believe that this will work, as only the last matching rule
> (or first matching rule that has 'quick') is used.
Yes, this was my gut feeling too, but I have been unable to find any
validation of this in th
> A hub? You might also be able to use a switch if you can disable MAC
> address learning to force it to flood frames to all its ports.
>
I'm currently using a hub, and that is what is hurting me. Too many
collisions from the hub shuts down my SPAN port on my switch. (CatOS
sets a port to errdis
I'd like to aggregate traffic coming in on several interfaces into one
'pool' of traffic and then send a copy of this traffic to multiple
hosts. I don't know if this is currently possible, and was wondering
if it is even remotely on the radar of the developers?
Essentially I have multiple SPAN po
