OK. This is quite a bit different from my guess. Am I right in inferring from the routing table that the router you call PC101 is the default gateway (in the routing table as 192.168.147.4)? Doesn't really matter, I suppose, since whatever the device is, it is now clear that all these LANs reach the Internet by way of the network on eth3. And as I think more about it, this is more consistent with the packet counts on the various interfaces.
From this info, and the packet counts, I'd still surmise that the errors on eth1 come from its hosts accessing the router a lot more than the hosts on eth0 or eth2. I'd still guess that there are a lot more hosts on eth1 than eth2 (or at least a lot more that access the router), and that the eth2 traffic is very bursty, but from a relatively small number of hosts. Finally, I'd guess that the router mostly connects the various hosts to the default gateway; this makes most of the traffic on eth3 be to and from the gateway, accounting for high loads there with few errors and no collisions. Actually, eth1 is the only (local - excluding eth3, that is) interface that generates more packets than it receives; might you have some server (mail, perhaps? or even DNS?) on it that accounts for the residue of router traffic? All that said, though, the errors still look like they are within normal ranges, if we assume eth1 is the biggest and busiest LAN (regarding router traffic). At 02:40 PM 10/7/02 -0600, Troy Aden wrote: >Sorry for the lack of information. Here is the role of this router in our >network. > >Internet--------> >PC001 -eth0 FIREWALL BOX (Not this router) eth1 --------> switch >PC002 -eth0 BARE production ROUTER (This is the box I did the ifconfig >shown below) ---------> switch ------>Windows clients 100 base-t network > -eth1 BARE production ROUTER (This is the box I did the ifconfig >shown below) ---------> switch ------>Windows clients 100 base-t network > -eth2 BARE production ROUTER (This is the box I did the ifconfig >shown below) ---------> switch ------>Windows clients 100 base-t network > -eth3 BARE production ROUTER (This is the box I did the ifconfig >shown below) ---------> backbone switch gateway to other router. > >Here is my "ip route" output table just to make it a little clearer. > >255.255.255.255 dev eth3 scope link >255.255.255.255 dev eth2 scope link >255.255.255.255 dev eth1 scope link >255.255.255.255 dev eth0 scope link >192.168.147.0/24 dev eth3 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.147.1 >192.168.146.0/24 via 192.168.147.2 dev eth3 >192.168.145.0/24 via 192.168.147.2 dev eth3 >192.168.144.0/24 via 192.168.147.2 dev eth3 >192.168.143.0/24 dev eth2 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.143.1 >192.168.142.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.142.1 >192.168.141.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.141.1 >192.168.140.0/24 via 192.168.147.3 dev eth3 >default via 192.168.147.4 dev eth3 > > > > -----Original Message----- >From: Ray Olszewski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 2:01 PM >To: Troy Aden; Leaf-User (E-mail) >Subject: Re: [leaf-user] ifconfig Explanation please. > >With absolutely zero information about the underlying networks, one can >only guess about numbers of this sort. But with that disclaimer, my gut >reaction is that the error and collision counts are within the normal range >for fairly busy LANs. > >To be specific, here is my guess about what we are looking at-- > >1. eth0 is your Internet connection, and it links the Bering router to some >dedicated device like a DSL or cable modem. Since this tiny "LAN" has only >two clients on it, and the slow data rates associated with Internet access, >it doesn't push even the limits of a 10 Mbps connection, let alone 100 >Mbps. Consequently, negligible error and collision counts. > >2. eth1 is a busy LAN (as a user of the router), with many clients and a >lot of local traffic as well (perhaps a lot of WinXX hosts with SMB >mounts), pushing the 10 or 100 Mbps limit, so generating some errors. They >are well below 1% of packets so no big deal, unless you are seeing other >performance problems on this LAN (in which case they might be an early >warning of an overloaded Ethernet). The errors here are (if I recall >correctly how to interpret this output -- I can't readily find a reference >to check -- can someone else PLEASE help here?) the results of collisions >between a packet from a client to the router and some other packet on the >LAN. > >3. eth2 is another LAN, but much less active (its RX traffic to the router >is only about 2% of the volume seen on eth1), probably with way fewer >clients than eth1. But traffic to the router is in bursts, creating >collisions between RX and TX packets to/from the router. This may be your >DMZ. > >3. eth3 is still another LAN, about as busy (as a user of the router) as >eth1, but with less local traffic. As a result, the LAN does not press its >10 or 100 Mbps limit much, and there are few errors. > >All this is just a guess, of course. Other variables might be whether they >are 10 MBbps or 100 Mbps LANs, whether they use hubs or switches, how much >uptime the packet counts cover, and even it they use something other than >UTP wiring. > >If I'm way off in describing the characteristics of any of these LANs >(well, at least eth1 and eth2), then you may have a problem. But we'll need >to know more about the characteristics of the networks to suggest anything >specific. > >If anyone knows enough to correct my interpretation of what the error and >collision numbers actually mean, I'd really welcome hearing from him or her >... especially if the correction includes a reference to appropriate >documentation. > >At 01:08 PM 10/7/02 -0600, Troy Aden wrote: > >This is the ifconfig output from one of our Bering routers. Please note all > >of the errors on eth1 and eth2. Can someone please explain this to me? Am I > >to interpret these errors as a router problem or is it indicating some > >network device is barfing out erroneous data on that subnet? Any ideas >would > >be appreciated. Thanks! > > > > > >lo Link encap:Local Loopback > > inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0 > > UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1 > > RX packets:364 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 > > TX packets:364 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 > > Collisions:0 > > > >eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:80:C8:CF:C8:61 > > inet addr: 192.168.141.1 Bcast:192.168.141.255 > >Mask:255.255.255.0 > > UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 > > RX packets:148190074 errors:1 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 > > TX packets:150696043 errors:20 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:20 > > Collisions:0 > > Interrupt:10 Base address:0x8000 > > > >eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:80:C8:CF:C8:62 > > inet addr:192.168.142.1 Bcast:192.168.142.255 >Mask:255.255.255.0 > > UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 > > RX packets:311524321 errors:667269 dropped:4 overruns:0 > >frame:667268 > > TX packets:244260637 errors:6 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:6 > > Collisions:0 > > Interrupt:11 Base address:0xa000 > > > >eth2 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:80:C8:CF:C8:63 > > inet addr:192.168.143.1 Bcast:192.168.143.255 >Mask:255.255.255.0 > > UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 > > RX packets:5742144 errors:691 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:1381 > > TX packets:8793908 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 > > Collisions:74307 > > Interrupt:9 Base address:0xc000 > > > >eth3 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:80:C8:CF:C8:64 > > inet addr:192.168.147.1 Bcast:192.168.147.255 >Mask:255.255.255.0 > > UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 > > RX packets:363126921 errors:1 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 > > TX packets:421969990 errors:33 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:33 > > Collisions:0 > > Interrupt:5 Base address:0xe000 > > > > >-- >-------------------------------------------"Never tell me the odds!"-------- >Ray Olszewski -- Han Solo >Palo Alto, California, USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >--- -- -------------------------------------------"Never tell me the odds!"-------- Ray Olszewski -- Han Solo Palo Alto, California, USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ------------------------------------------------------------------------ leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
