Hi Alfredo,

Thanks for referring to my question.
I hope the following answers:

[root@CT10K10G]# cat /etc/pf_ring/pfring.conf
min_num_slots=1024 transparent_mode=2 enable_frag_coherence=1
enable_ip_defrag=1

[root@CT10K10G]# cat /proc/net/pf_ring/info
PF_RING Version          : 6.0.1 ($Revision: exported$)
Total rings              : 0

Standard (non DNA) Options
Ring slots               : 1024
Slot version             : 15
Capture TX               : Yes [RX+TX]
IP Defragment            : Yes
Socket Mode              : Standard
Transparent mode         : No [mode 2]
Total plugins            : 0
Cluster Fragment Queue   : 0
Cluster Fragment Discard : 0

Thanks,
Amir


On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Alfredo Cardigliano <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Hi Amir
> how did you load pf_ring.ko? Can I see the command line?
> Please also try using latest code from svn, this helps us debugging the
> issue.
>
> Br
> Alfredo
>
> On 01 Apr 2015, at 18:22, Amir Kaduri <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>
> I’m using PF_RING-6.0.1.
>
> I’m trying to develop an application that runs some algorithm consisting
> on rules.
>
> I made some tests using the “pfcount” tester, and unfortunately, I don’t
> understand the behavior:
>
> I’m running the following command line: “./pfcount -i eth3 -u 2 -v 1 -r
> –m” which AFAIU, adds a wildcard filter for each incoming packet.
>
> If I get it correctly, once a rule was added, I should not expect other
> packets of the same session to receive, and this is not what I’m getting.
>
> For example:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> [root@CT10K10G examples]# ./pfcount -i eth3 -u 2 -v 1 -r -m
>
> Adding wildcard filtering rules
>
> Using PF_RING v.6.0.1
>
> Capturing from eth3 [00:E0:ED:FE:18:19][ifIndex: 11]
>
> # Device RX channels: 6
>
> # Polling threads:    1
>
> Dumping statistics on /proc/net/pf_ring/stats/11993-eth3.1074
>
> 18:52:35.956295950 [RX][if_index=11][00:08:E3:FF:FC:C8 ->
> 00:01:02:03:04:05] [vlan 70] [direction 1] [IPv4][10.61.10.9:52311 ->
> 10.70.150.108:60189]
> [l3_proto=TCP][hash=344283189][tos=0][tcp_seq_num=596843063]
> [caplen=128][len=1522][parsed_header_len=0][eth_offset=-14][l3_offset=18][l4_offset=38][payload_offset=58]
>
> Rule 0 added successfully...
>
> 18:52:35.956301616 [RX][if_index=11][00:08:E3:FF:FC:C8 ->
> 00:01:02:03:04:05] [vlan 70] [direction 1] [IPv4][10.61.10.9:52311 ->
> 10.70.150.108:60189]
> [l3_proto=TCP][hash=344283189][tos=0][tcp_seq_num=596844523]
> [caplen=128][len=650][parsed_header_len=0][eth_offset=-14][l3_offset=18][l4_offset=38][payload_offset=58]
>
> Rule 1 added successfully...
>
> 18:52:35.956303262 [RX][if_index=11][00:08:E3:FF:FC:C8 ->
> 00:01:02:03:04:05] [vlan 70] [direction 1] [IPv4][10.61.10.9:52311 ->
> 10.70.150.108:60189]
> [l3_proto=TCP][hash=344283189][tos=0][tcp_seq_num=596845111]
> [caplen=128][len=1086][parsed_header_len=0][eth_offset=-14][l3_offset=18][l4_offset=38][payload_offset=58]
>
> Rule 2 added successfully...
>
> :
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> How come, that once rule #0 was added for [10.61.10.9:52311 ->
> 10.70.150.108:60189], I still see such packets in the next lines?
> Shouldn’t they be filtered by the rule that just as added?
>
>
> (BTW, when I use the command “./pfcount -i eth3 -u 1 -v 1 -r –m” (i.e. –u
> is 1 rather than 2), the tester uses hash filters, and in this case, I get
> errors:
>
> 18:53:19.052549112 [RX][if_index=11][00:08:E3:FF:FC:C8 ->
> 00:01:02:03:04:05] [vlan 70] [direction 1] [IPv4][10.61.10.9:52311 ->
> 10.70.150.108:60189]
> [l3_proto=TCP][hash=344283189][tos=0][tcp_seq_num=596847159]
> [caplen=128][len=1490][parsed_header_len=0][eth_offset=-14][l3_offset=18][l4_offset=38][payload_offset=58]
>
> pfring_add_hash_filtering_rule(1) failed)
>
>
> Any help will be appreciated.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Amir
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ntop-misc mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ntop-misc mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc
>
_______________________________________________
Ntop-misc mailing list
[email protected]
http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc

Reply via email to