New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

sostat: group packet loss stats into one section #951

Closed
dougburks opened this Issue Jun 25, 2016 · 5 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@dougburks
Contributor

dougburks commented Jun 25, 2016

NIC
PF_RING
Snort or Suricata
Bro

also include a note that Bro capture_loss may indicate upstream packet loss as well

@weslambert

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@weslambert

weslambert Jul 2, 2016

Collaborator

Doug,

Is this intended to just re-arrange the sostat output into a single packet loss section, or to modify/simplify it as well (separating certain parts from the other output)? I'm assuming you would want to make it as simple as possible for the end user to diagnose problems and to troubleshoot.

For example, in regard to:

NIC --> only showing the interface, RX, TX Packets, and dropped packets for an interface
PF_RING --> only showing the application and packet loss for pf_ring (instead of the additional info)
Snort/Suricata --> Dropped packets/percentage
Bro --> capture loss, note

Finally, would netsniff-ng be included in this as well?

Thanks,
Wes

Collaborator

weslambert commented Jul 2, 2016

Doug,

Is this intended to just re-arrange the sostat output into a single packet loss section, or to modify/simplify it as well (separating certain parts from the other output)? I'm assuming you would want to make it as simple as possible for the end user to diagnose problems and to troubleshoot.

For example, in regard to:

NIC --> only showing the interface, RX, TX Packets, and dropped packets for an interface
PF_RING --> only showing the application and packet loss for pf_ring (instead of the additional info)
Snort/Suricata --> Dropped packets/percentage
Bro --> capture loss, note

Finally, would netsniff-ng be included in this as well?

Thanks,
Wes

@dougburks

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@dougburks

dougburks Jul 2, 2016

Contributor

Hi Wes,

Replies inline.

Is this intended to just re-arrange the sostat output into a single packet loss section, or to modify/simplify it as well (separating certain parts from the other output)? I'm assuming you would want to make it as simple as possible for the end user to diagnose problems and to troubleshoot.

For example, in regard to:

NIC --> only showing the interface, RX, TX Packets, and dropped packets for an interface
PF_RING --> only showing the application and packet loss for pf_ring (instead of the additional info)
Snort/Suricata --> Dropped packets/percentage
Bro --> capture loss, note

Yes, sounds good.

Finally, would netsniff-ng be included in this as well?

Yes, please.

Thanks!

Contributor

dougburks commented Jul 2, 2016

Hi Wes,

Replies inline.

Is this intended to just re-arrange the sostat output into a single packet loss section, or to modify/simplify it as well (separating certain parts from the other output)? I'm assuming you would want to make it as simple as possible for the end user to diagnose problems and to troubleshoot.

For example, in regard to:

NIC --> only showing the interface, RX, TX Packets, and dropped packets for an interface
PF_RING --> only showing the application and packet loss for pf_ring (instead of the additional info)
Snort/Suricata --> Dropped packets/percentage
Bro --> capture loss, note

Yes, sounds good.

Finally, would netsniff-ng be included in this as well?

Yes, please.

Thanks!

@weslambert

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
Collaborator

weslambert commented Jul 4, 2016

@dougburks

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
Contributor

dougburks commented Jul 4, 2016

@dougburks

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment

@dougburks dougburks closed this Jul 7, 2016

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment