Hi Mel, I've tried setting this this morning, but its still just showing the network which the nTop server is running. I take it that the setting should be = 1 ? I'll continue to experiment though. Many Thanks, Nick
________________________________ From: ntop-boun...@unipi.it [mailto:ntop-boun...@unipi.it] On Behalf Of Mel Beckman Sent: 06 January 2009 21:19 To: ntop@unipi.it; d...@ntop.org Subject: Re: [Ntop] nTop Max Devices. Nick, You said you tried --local-subnets, defining each /24 individually, but that didn't seem to have any effect. I had the same result until I enabled ntop.dontTrustMACaddr in Admin>Configure>Preferences. MAC address analysis doesn't really buy you anything if you're primarily monitoring remote networks, and I believe it considerably reduces the CPU load on the ntop server when MAC addresses are ignored. Now when I view IP>Summary>Networks, I get details on every /24. Clicking on the /24 link in this table displays a list of hosts in the /24, letting me see the breakdown by host of TCP, UDP, and ICMP traffic. This list is column-sortable, letting me quickly see who the high rollers are. Clicking on an individual host's link provides very good detail about that host's activity, including the specific protocols and peers it's been using, and relative traffic volumes by protocol. I don't know if ntop has any limit on the networks table, but I'm monitoring about 160 without any problems on a 2.6 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo Shuttle Barebones with 3.2G RAM and 2TB disk. Our upstream links are 100 Mbps, and so far I have not seen any dropped packets, although I'm thinking of going to NetFlow because of a planned upgrade to 1GB uplinks. Monitoring the uplinks to our peers on a Cisco 3550 L3 switch using port mirroring works fine for now, though. -mel On 1/6/09 12:52 PM, "Luca Deri" <d...@ntop.org> wrote: Nick the community concept was designed to address situations as the one you described. it seems it isn't enough for you. what is missing? I tell you in advance that creating hundred of virtual interfaces isn't a solution IMHO Cheers Luca On Jan 6, 2009, at 5:45 PM, Nick Verdegem wrote: > Thanks for your response. > I've been experimenting with this this afternoon and I don't think it > will quite do what we need. > > Our infrastructure consists of 250-300 remote sites, generally > assigned > a /24 subnet. These sites come back to a series of data centres, > using > a variety of thick and thin client technology. Our requirement is to > be > able to identify on a site by site basis, using netflow data from > the on > site router, who is using the local circuit and what they're doing. > The > original plan was to create a Virtual Interface for each /24, allowing > the support team to quickly swap VI's for each site and identify > what is > going on. > > I have experimented with assigning a VI with a /16 subnet, but the > filtering within nTop doesn't seem to be able to cope with wildcards, > e.g. 192.168.2.*, meaning that it becomes extremely difficult to see > on > a site by site basis what is happening. > > I have also tried starting up with --local-subnets, defining each /24 > that I'm monitoring, but that doesn't seem to have any effect, simply > because I believe the NetFlow probe detects this from the received > flow > information anyway. > > I've tried with the 'community' definitions, but I can't see a way of > searching/filtering for this, other than sorting the column under > hosts. > I suspect that the 'subnet' drop down might be helpful, but all I > get is > 'All' or 'Unknown Subnets', and can't find a way of defining these. > > There may be another way of doing it, but I cant see anything reading > MAN. And surely we can't be the only people looking at having this > quantity of devices :) > > > > "This email and any file attachments do not form a contract unless > expressly stated. They may contain privileged, confidential and/or > copyright information. If you are not the intended recipient or the > service provider responsible for delivering this please delete the > material from any computer and return to the sender at once; do not > use, disclose or reproduce its contents. We do not accept liability > for any error or omission in the message arising from corruption of, > delay in or interference with, its transmission. We reserve the > right to monitor email communications through normal internal and > external networks. We believe but do not warrant that the email and > the file attachments are virus free." > > Interserve Plc. Registered in England, Number : 88456. > Registered Office: Interserve House, Ruscombe Park, Twyford, > Reading, Berkshire, RG10 9JU. > > _______________________________________________ > Ntop mailing list > Ntop@unipi.it > http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop _______________________________________________ Ntop mailing list Ntop@unipi.it http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by WebSense MailControl.www.websense.com Click here <https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/fNyErtrfkN7TndxI!oX7Ur5iz8OzEQ5m8PwO4rmj wzrAyUYTXa+bW59MNHh4JoetlZAaMsEpnmHwq3xXRfv08Q==> to report this email as spam.
_______________________________________________ Ntop mailing list Ntop@unipi.it http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop
