North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Let's talk about Distance Sniffing/Remote Visibility
- From: CARL.P.HIRSCH
- Date: Thu Mar 28 10:45:26 2002
Yeah, the device I've got in my head is a 1U server with 4 (or more?)
interfaces... not so much to simultaneously pull 400Mbps of bandwidth for
analysis but rather to just have a interface going to each switch I might
want to monitor and then span traffic to the Ethereal box. Given that I'm
trying to attain remote visibility, it might be nice not to need remote
hands to be swapping patch cords back and forth.
I'm imagining that even with a relatively speedy box, if you were trying to
do analysis from multiple interfaces you'd at least choke the disk I/O.
There's always stringent filters, I guess.
thanks for the input,
<firstname.lastname@example.org To: CARL.P.HIRSCH@sargentlundy.com
quick.net> cc: email@example.com
Sent by: Subject: Re: Let's talk about Distance Sniffing/Remote
03/28/02 09:02 AM
"C" is close. Not sure what you mean by "a ton of interfaces".
Most (all?) good managed switches have a "monitor port" or
"mirror port" where they can blind copy traffic from other ports
to the one that's set aside for snooping.
Four-port ethernet cards are readily available. How many
switches do you wish to monitor simultaneously? Even with only
four ports (more in one box is certainly possible), you can have
a fair amount of traffic to digest.
Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national
Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT)
From: A Trap <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.
These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT
send mail to <email@example.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.