Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 17:50:01 -0800 (PST) From: "Crist J. Clark" <cjc@FreeBSD.ORG> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/34591: ICMP bandwidth limiting does not indicate interface Message-ID: <200202070150.g171o1t14180@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR kern/34591; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: "Crist J. Clark" <cjc@FreeBSD.ORG>
To: Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net>
Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: kern/34591: ICMP bandwidth limiting does not indicate interface
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 17:46:30 -0800
On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 12:23:35PM -0800, Eric Hodel wrote:
[snip]
> >Description:
> When limiting the ICMP responses, the interface upon which the
> bandwidth is being limited is not displayed. For a machine with
> multiple interfaces, the administrator will have to employ other
> tools to determine which interface is affected
The patch is somewhat bogus since right now, the limiting has nothing
to do with interfaces. That is, if you have a 200 limit and there are
75 packets on if0, 75 packets on if1, and 75 packets on if2, you'll
hit the limit. But which one should be displayed in the message? There
is also the situation where there is a storm on if0, but a ICMP
message from if1, where there is a low bandwidth, happens to trip the
alarm.
Now how often do situations like that happen? I really couldn't
say. The patches provide a first approximation of the interface with
the trouble, but can actually provide false information which I think
may be more trouble than its worth.
--
Crist J. Clark | cjclark@alum.mit.edu
| cjclark@jhu.edu
http://people.freebsd.org/~cjc/ | cjc@freebsd.org
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200202070150.g171o1t14180>