Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:56:56 -0700 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Cc: Adam <blueeskimo@gmx.net> Subject: Re: Bandwidth monitoring Message-ID: <20030626225656.A79716@xorpc.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1030626190216.67803B-100000@fledge.watson.org>; from rwatson@freebsd.org on Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 07:05:57PM -0400 References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0306261555530.12070-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1030626190216.67803B-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 07:05:57PM -0400, Robert Watson wrote:
...
> > that an ISP is likely to charge for and have the tables 'reaped every
> > now and then by a daemon to give a time dimension to the data..
>
> Well, the case that this code was designed for was passive monitoring of
> many IPs over many systems (some of which have a large number of IP
> addresses, each to be separately billed). I also wanted to specifically
> disqualify local traffic between the hosts, since that wasn't part of the
> billing structure. You could certainly implement this using ipfw
> accounting, but only if you wanted to add one firewall rule for each
> matching case of interest (since we needed to separately measure), and you
just for the records, you can do counting on a per-host basis with
a single ipfw rule, using dummynet pipes:
... rules to remove undesired traffic...
ipfw add pipe 1 ip from ${my_subnet} to not ${my_subnet} in
ipfw pipe 1 config mask src-ip 0xffffffff
sysctl net.inet.ip.dummynet.expire=0
This of course requires that the traffic you are interested in
flows through the box where you are running the above ipfw config.
cheers
luigi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030626225656.A79716>