Hi Alfredo,

I have not used any packages.
I downloaded the latest PFRING from https://github.com/ntop/PF_RING and
selected Branch as dev and Saved the Zip file using CloneorDownload
option.
I compiled the PFRING source code and used all the necessary files. I can
see the changes you have done in pf_ring.c also.

I think version is not displayed due to some issues with git. Received this
error while executing ./configure in kernel directory.
fatal: Not a git repository (or any of the parent directories): .git

Have you used any pfring examples  to verify these changes?

Regards,
Chandrika

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Alfredo Cardigliano <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Hi Gautam
> for some reason I do not see the pf_ring revision here, please make sure
> the pf_ring.ko module you are using is from latest code,
> if you are using packages, please remove the pfring package, manually
> delete all pf_ring.ko in your system, and reinstall it to make
> sure DKMS installs the new module.
>
> Alfredo
>
> On 11 Nov 2016, at 09:53, Chandrika Gautam <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> # cat /proc/net/pf_ring/info
> PF_RING Version          : 6.5.0 (unknown)
> Total rings              : 0
>
> Standard (non ZC) Options
> Ring slots               : 409600
> Slot version             : 16
> Capture TX               : No [RX only]
> IP Defragment            : No
> Socket Mode              : Standard
> Cluster Fragment Queue   : 0
> Cluster Fragment Discard : 0
>
> Regards,
> Gautam
>
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Alfredo Cardigliano <[email protected]
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> On 11 Nov 2016, at 07:29, Chandrika Gautam <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Alfredo,
>>
>> I tested with latest pfring from github but still packets are segregated
>> to different applications.
>>
>>
>> Please provide me the output of "cat /proc/net/pf_ring/info"
>>
>> After your latest change, We need to use cluster_per_flow_2_tuple only
>> right to segregate traffic on outer ip addresses ?
>>
>>
>> Correct
>>
>> Should we load pfring module with enable_frag_coherence=1? I have tested
>> with using this or without this with the latest package from github.
>>
>>
>> enable_frag_coherence is set to 1 by default
>>
>> Alfredo
>>
>>
>>
>> Regrads,
>> Gautam
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Chandrika Gautam <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Alfredo for an update.
>>> I will update you once merge with latest
>>> PFRing.
>>> Regards,
>>> Gautam
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Nov 10, 2016, at 10:38 PM, Alfredo Cardigliano <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Gautam
>>> your traffic is GTP traffic and the hash was computed on the inner
>>> headers when present,
>>> I did change the behaviour computing the hash on the outer header when
>>> using cluster_per_flow_2_tuple, and introduced
>>> new hash types cluster_per_inner_* for computing hash on inner header,
>>> when present.
>>> Please update from github or wait for new packages.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Alfredo
>>>
>>> On 10 Nov 2016, at 11:41, Chandrika Gautam <
>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Alfredo
>>>
>>> PFA the traces having vlan and not vlan.
>>>
>>> To add more details to this, there are 2 observations -
>>> 1. We ran a bigger file of 1 lakh packets, out of which fragments of
>>> same packet got distributed across application
>>>
>>> 2. We ran with the attached file and observed that the 2 packets were
>>> going to one application and rest of the packets were to other one.
>>>
>>> Thanks & Regards
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Alfredo Cardigliano <
>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Gautam
>>>> could you provide a pcap we can use to reproduce this?
>>>>
>>>> Alfredo
>>>>
>>>> > On 10 Nov 2016, at 11:22, Chandrika Gautam <
>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Hi,
>>>> >
>>>> > We are using PFRING cluster feature and using cluster_2_tuple and 2
>>>> applications
>>>> > are reading from same cluster id.
>>>> >
>>>> > We have observed that the packets having same source and destination
>>>> ip addresses are getting distributed across 2 applications which has
>>>> completely tossed our logic as we are trying to assemble the fragments in
>>>> our applications.
>>>> >
>>>> > Is there any bug in PFRING clustering mechanism which is causing this.
>>>> >
>>>> > Using PFRING 6.2.0 and  pfring is loaded with below command -
>>>> > insmod pf_ring.ko min_num_slots=409600 enable_tx_capture=0
>>>> >
>>>> > I tried with this also.
>>>> > insmod pf_ring.ko min_num_slots=409600 enable_tx_capture=0
>>>> enable_frag_coherence=1
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Regards,
>>>> > Gautam
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > 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
>>>>
>>>
>>> <multiple_fragments_id35515.pcap><multiple_fragments_id35515
>>> _wo_vlan.pcap>_______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
_______________________________________________
Ntop-misc mailing list
[email protected]
http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc

Reply via email to