From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 20 18:22:06 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4655616A4CE for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:22:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.distalzou.net (203.141.139.231.user.ad.il24.net [203.141.139.231]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71D4443D45 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:22:05 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from devin@spamcop.net) Received: from plexi.pun-pun.prv ([192.168.7.29] helo=plexi) by mail.distalzou.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1D2viW-000Je4-0R for freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 03:22:04 +0900 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 03:22:03 +0900 (JST) From: Tod McQuillin X-X-Sender: devin@plexi.pun-pun.prv To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20050221031739.G684@plexi.pun-pun.prv> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Help me understand netstat output X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:22:06 -0000 On a 5.3-STABLE system (and actually for the past few years on FreeBSD 4.x and 5.x), 'netstat -in' has show numbers like this: Name Mtu Network Address Ipkts Ierrs Opkts Oerrs Coll xl0 1500 00:04:76:5f:45:1f 622543 0 621123 0 0 xl0 1500 192.168.7 192.168.7.28 622208 - 2110040 - - lo0 16384 169 0 169 0 0 lo0 16384 127 127.0.0.1 169 - 169 - - wi0* 1500 00:02:2d:29:28:7f 0 0 0 0 0 Why does the second line for xl0 show so many more outgoing packets than the first line? It seems to me the first line (Link#1) should count all packets at OSI layer 2, and the second should count layer 3 (IP) packets. I can see the layer 2 count being bigger than layer 3 count (lots of arp or other ether-only traffic) but not the other way around. Anyone know the explanation for this? -- Tod McQuillin