RE: [RPRWG] Promiscuous mode
Hi There,
From memory at the last meeting we decided that rather than say we were in promiscuous mode (which would be misleading as we still don't pass all local unicast frames to the client), we would define a couple of sets of receive filters (which is all promiscuous mode means on a 802.3 MAC).
The selection of which filter to use would depend on how the system is set up. Have a look at the resolution of comment 950 & 951 and see if this would resolve your issues.
Regards
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Anoop Ghanwani [mailto:anoop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 11:33 AM
To: 'Blakey, Sam'; 'stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] Promiscuous mode
Sam,
I agree with your comment. I think the MAC should
check whether or not the receiver is in promiscuous
mode before copying a flooded frame from the ring
that has a unicast DA not equal to its own.
-Anoop
-----Original Message-----
From: Blakey, Sam [mailto:Sam.Blakey@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 11:10 AM
To: 'stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx'
Subject: [RPRWG] Promiscuous mode
Hi,
At the last meeting submitted a comment to include promiscuous mode in the
state table governing frame reception. The reply to the comment was that
Ethernet (802.3) only has promiscuous mode in the MIB. Now that I look more
carefully, in the frame reception normative clause (5.2.4.3 Receive
variables and procedures) there is a condition that checks promiscuous mode
and determines whether to receive a frame depending on whether in this mode.
So, if we're taking 802.3 as a guideline for the required contents for
promiscuous mode, although there is no actual description of the mode as a
subclause needed, it should be included in the frame reception logic (as per
comment submitted).
Opinions?
Thanks,
Sam
Sam Blakey
Integrated Device Technology, Inc.
2975 Stender Way,
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Tel: (408) 330-1432
Fax: (408) 492-8649
E-mail: sam.blakey@xxxxxxx
Visit the IDT web site www.idt.com