[ipv6hackers] Best Network Tap - for home

[Mark ZZZ Smith]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "sthaug at nethelp.no" <sthaug at nethelp.no>
> To: ipv6hackers at lists.si6networks.com; markzzzsmith at yahoo.com.au
> Cc: 
> Sent: Friday, 12 July 2013 6:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [ipv6hackers] Best Network Tap - for home
> 
>>  > You keep talking about crossover cables and MDI/MDI-X, but the topic 
> is creating 
>>  > a *tap*. That has nothing to do with crossover cables and MDI/MDI-X 
> but with how 
>>  > to listen to traffic without affecting it. That cannot be done with a 
> passive 
>>  > tap for gigabit ethernet because of the reasons that Gert mentioned.
>>  > 
>> 
>>  Isn't your wired up thing a x-over, and you've just broken out the 
> signals onto a 3rd passive port?
> 
> We've been trying to tell you: This doesn't work for GigE.
> 

Why not? I already proved that Auto MDI/MDI-X is optional by quoting the IEEE spec, and I've already made a GigE X-over that worked with autoneg enabled on both GigE interfaces (which also worked as a 10/100 x-over).

3 GigE's connected would be an issue with autoneg in Sander's scenario, but no more than 100BASE-T would be. If you switched off Autoneg on the GigE attached to the passive port of Sander's device, it'll use it's own clock and would probably receive packets.


Has anybody here tried what I'm suggesting, or is there no actual evidence that it won't work, just speculation. I'm speculating it might, given that it appears to work for 100BASE-T.

I don't 100% accept things that I've been told, too many times it ends up being not completely true, or dependent on a context that has been forgotten or not passed on.

(Quick test, on a Cisco, what admin distance would you assign an absolute last resort static route?)

> Steinar Haug, AS 2116
>