From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Greear Subject: Re: Multiqueue and virtualization WAS(Re: [PATCH 3/3] NET: [SCHED] Qdisc changes and sch_rr added for multiqueue Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 08:33:06 -0700 Message-ID: <46852632.5050707@candelatech.com> References: <46840AF5.4020209@trash.net> <20070628.212032.108743475.davem@davemloft.net> <1183117415.5156.61.camel@localhost> <4684F41B.9080309@trash.net> <1183121670.5188.16.camel@localhost> <46850450.6040608@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: hadi@cyberus.ca, David Miller , peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@intel.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, jeff@garzik.org, auke-jan.h.kok@intel.com To: Patrick McHardy Return-path: Received: from ns2.lanforge.com ([66.165.47.211]:42547 "EHLO ns2.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755825AbXF2PdV (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:33:21 -0400 In-Reply-To: <46850450.6040608@trash.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Patrick McHardy wrote: > Right, but the current bridging code always uses promiscous mode > and its nice to avoid that if possible. Looking at the code, it > should be easy to avoid though by disabling learning (and thus > promisous mode) and adding unicast filters for all static fdb entries. > I am curious about why people are so hot to do away with promisc mode. It seems to me that in a modern switched environment, there should only very rarely be unicast packets received on an interface that does not want to receive them. Could someone give a quick example of when I am wrong and promisc mode would allow a NIC to receive a significant number of packets not really destined for it? Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com