Re: future of IDS

Darren Reed (darrenrreed.wattle.id.au)
Sat, 24 Oct 1998 08:48:05 +1000 (EST)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
• Next message: Rick Smith: "Re: Trusted Unices Aren't?"
• Previous message: Robert Graham: "Re: Switching between FW Segs Still a NOT?"
• Maybe in reply to: Kleber Borran: "Switching between FW Segs Still a NOT?"
• Next in thread: Doug Hughes: "Re: future of IDS"
• Reply: Doug Hughes: "Re: future of IDS"

In some email I received from Doug Hughes, sie wrote:
>
>
> Darren Reed writes:
> >
> >Something which just occurred to me, switches are `meant' to be able to
> >switch such that full speed communications are kept between any two nodes
> >on the switch without taking bandwidth away from other pairs.
> >
> >If you have a switch with 24 ports for 100BaseT, can you then push 1.2Gb/s
> >through it ? Or is that just the `gigabit' hubs ? The problem is, that
> >if you have a single 100BaseT monitor port, either than throughput for the
> >entire switch is 100BaseT (serious reduction in performance) or you lose
> >packets on the monitor port.
> >
> That's what the gigabit uplink ports are for. There may be vendors that
> let you funnel all your 100Mbit and dup it out a gig, but I'm not aware
> of them. But yes, the switch backplane better be capable of approaching
> 1.2Gb, and most of them are these days.

I have just one problem with this: how do I plug my PC into one of those
gigabit uplink ports ?

Also, I imagine that the protocol on those connectors is proprietry, so
even if you could connect it, making sense of it would be the next trick.

Darren

• Next message: Rick Smith: "Re: Trusted Unices Aren't?"
• Previous message: Robert Graham: "Re: Switching between FW Segs Still a NOT?"
• Maybe in reply to: Kleber Borran: "Switching between FW Segs Still a NOT?"
• Next in thread: Doug Hughes: "Re: future of IDS"
• Reply: Doug Hughes: "Re: future of IDS"

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Jul 17 1999 - 07:11:57 CDT