From owner-freebsd-net Thu Dec 16 23:57:56 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from gaia.nimnet.asn.au (nimbin.lnk.telstra.net [139.130.45.143]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 263A314C87 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 23:57:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from smithi@nimnet.asn.au) Received: from localhost (smithi@localhost) by gaia.nimnet.asn.au (8.8.8/8.8.8R1.0) with SMTP id SAA21089; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 18:56:19 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from smithi@nimnet.asn.au) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 18:56:19 +1100 (EST) From: Ian Smith To: Mike Nowlin Cc: Aldrin Leal , freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Math Help for IPFW :) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 17 Dec 1999, Mike Nowlin wrote: > > Sure you can use SNMP also, or instead, but if you want to do it from > > your gathered IPFW data, why not just use the byte counters rather than > > or as well as the packet counters, per rule? > > Agreed -- the reason I use SNMP is that the program which monitors this > stuff is far more involved than I let on -- actually watches lots of > different boxes (computers, routers, etc.) from a central monitoring > station. Way to go for that for sure. > Depends on how you want to do it, and what you want to watch... SNMP is > pretty hoggish, but it's universal. Agreed all round. IPFW stats can be pretty useful for single box analysis though, especially with careful (count) rule design. In retrospect, I have a lot or work to do on it yet :^) Cheers, Ian To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message