Hi Luca,

I can repeat the test with pfdump when I'm back at my computer, but is
there something in particular you're looking for that wasn't in the pfcount
output I provided?  Shouldn't all the traffic from that one TCP stream be
sent to one instance of pfcount?

Thanks,
Doug

On Sunday, June 2, 2013, Luca Deri wrote:

> Hi
> You're right. We need to add it: you can c&p the code from pfcount in the
> meantime
>
> Luca
>
> On Jun 2, 2013, at 1:54 AM, Doug Burks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I have pfdump now but I don't see a cluster-id option.  Did you mean
> > pfcount?  If I run 2 instances of pfcount with the same cluster-id and
> > then replay a pcap with 10 packets all belonging to the same TCP
> > stream, I get 5 packets being sent to each pfcount instance.
> > Shouldn't all 10 packets be sent to 1 instance?
> >
> > First instance:
> >
> > sudo ./pfcount -c77 -i eth1
> > <snip>
> > =========================
> > Absolute Stats: [5 pkts rcvd][5 pkts filtered][0 pkts dropped]
> > Total Pkts=5/Dropped=0.0 %
> > 5 pkts - 434 bytes [0.38 pkt/sec - 0.00 Mbit/sec]
> > =========================
> > Actual Stats: 5 pkts [1'000.75 ms][5.00 pps/0.00 Gbps]
> > =========================
> >
> > Second instance:
> >
> > sudo ./pfcount -c77 -i eth1
> > <snip>
> > =========================
> > Absolute Stats: [5 pkts rcvd][5 pkts filtered][0 pkts dropped]
> > Total Pkts=5/Dropped=0.0 %
> > 5 pkts - 834 bytes [0.62 pkt/sec - 0.00 Mbit/sec]
> > =========================
> > Actual Stats: 5 pkts [1'001.39 ms][4.99 pps/0.00 Gbps]
> > =========================
> >
> > The replayed pcap is just ten packets that result from "curl
> testmyids.com":
> >
> > tcpdump -nnr testmyids.pcap
> > reading from file testmyids.pcap, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet)
> > 11:46:11.691648 IP 192.168.111.111.50154 > 217.160.51.31.80: Flags
> > [S], seq 3840903154, win 42340, options [mss 1460,sackOK,TS val
> > 20137183 ecr 0,nop,wscale 11], length 0
> > 11:46:11.808833 IP 217.160.51.31.80 > 192.168.111.111.50154: Flags
> > [S.], seq 2859277445, ack 3840903155, win 5840, options [mss
> > 1460,nop,wscale 7], length 0
> > 11:46:11.808854 IP 192.168.111.111.50154 > 217.160.51.31.80: Flags
> > [.], ack 1, win 21, length 0
> > 11:46:11.809083 IP 192.168.111.111.50154 > 217.160.51.31.80: Flags
> > [P.], seq 1:166, ack 1, win 21, length 165
> > 11:46:11.927518 IP 217.160.51.31.80 > 192.168.111.111.50154: Flags
> > [.], ack 166, win 54, length 0
> > 11:46:12.036708 IP 217.160.51.31.80 > 192.168.111.111.50154: Flags
> > [P.], seq 1:260, ack 166, win 54, length 259
> > 11:46:12.036956 IP 192.168.111.111.50154 > 217.160.51.31.80: Flags
> > [.], ack 260, win 21, length 0
> > 11:46:12.037206 IP 192.168.111.111.50154 > 217.160.51.31.80: Flags
> > [F.], seq 166, ack 260, win 21, length 0
> > 11:46:12.154641 IP 217.160.51.31.80 > 192.168.111.111.50154: Flags
> > [F.], seq 260, ack 167, win 54, length 0
> > 11:46:12.154888 IP 192.168.111.111.50154 > 217.160.51.31.80: Flags
> > [.], ack 261, win 21, length 0
> >
> > Any ideas?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Doug
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Doug Burks <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Luca Deri <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> Hi Doug
> >>>
> >>> On Jun 1, 2013, at 6:59 AM, Doug Burks <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hello all,
> >>>>
> >>>> I recently packaged PF_RING 5.5.3 for my Security Onion distro:
> >>>>
> http://securityonion.blogspot.com/2013/05/pfring-553-packages-now-available.html
> >>>>
> >>>> Perhaps I'm missing something, but I'm seeing some behavior I don't
> >>>> remember seeing in 5.5.2 or previous versions of PF_RING.
> >>>>
> >>>> Here are my testing parameters:
> >>>> - starting off with a good test, if I run just one instance of snort,
> >>>> I get an alert from rule 2100498 for EACH time I run "curl
> >>>> testmyids.com"
> >>>> - if I increase to two instances of snort with the same cluster-id, I
> >>>> get NO alerts when running "curl testmyids.com"
> >>>> - if I set the daq clustermode to 2, I get NO alerts when running
> >>>> "curl <http://testmyids.com>>
> _______________________________________________
> > Ntop-misc mailing list
> > [email protected] <javascript:;>
> > http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ntop-misc mailing list
> [email protected] <javascript:;>
> http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc
>


-- 
Doug Burks
http://securityonion.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
Ntop-misc mailing list
[email protected]
http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc

Reply via email to