Thank you. This simplifies the config and is a great new feature. ~W
On 08/03/17 19:13, Simone Mainardi wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Warren Daly (OPUS)
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi Matt,
I run several ASA5510 and ASA5505 Firewalls running 9.1.7+ and
they're all sending V9 Netflow streams to several NProbe
collectors on 1 server (they listen on different ports) NTOPNG is
running on the same machine. This allows me to view different
'interfaces' so I can view traffic i/o on the various ASAs.
I would be really interested in seeing/comparing flows if you sent
flows from FNF to 1 instance of Nprobe, and flows from V9 from the
ASA to another instance of Nprobe (this is similar to my setup of
using multiple Nprobe collectors all running on different ports.
From the Cisco docs..."NetFlow version 9 is a flexible and
extensible NetFlow format used by Flexible NetFlow" So I'm really
interested in finding out how and why Flex Netflow differs from
Netflow V9. I thought it was just marketing department stuff...
but it seems you might have spotted a huge difference.
Sorry, you probably know this already.. but FYI
My ntop config shard is
-i=tcp://127.0.0.1:5555 <http://127.0.0.1:5555>
-i=tcp://127.0.0.1:5556 <http://127.0.0.1:5556>
-i=tcp://127.0.0.1:5557 <http://127.0.0.1:5557>
-i=tcp://127.0.0.1:5558 <http://127.0.0.1:5558>
-i=tcp://127.0.0.1:5560 <http://127.0.0.1:5560>
-i=tcp://127.0.0.1:5561 <http://127.0.0.1:5561>
-i=tcp://127.0.0.1:5563 <http://127.0.0.1:5563>
-i=tcp://127.0.0.1:5564 <http://127.0.0.1:5564>
-i=tcp://127.0.0.1:5565 <http://127.0.0.1:5565>
-i=tcp://127.0.0.1:5566 <http://127.0.0.1:5566>
and then I start nprobe several times...
nprobe --zmq tcp://*:5555 -i none -n none --collector-port 2055
nprobe --zmq tcp://*:5556 -i none -n none --collector-port 2056
nprobe --zmq tcp://*:5557 -i none -n none --collector-port 2057
nprobe --zmq tcp://*:5558 -i none -n none --collector-port 2058
nprobe --zmq tcp://*:5559 -i none -n none --collector-port 2059
nprobe --zmq tcp://*:5560 -i none -n none --collector-port 2060
nprobe --zmq tcp://*:5561 -i none -n none --collector-port 2061
nprobe --zmq tcp://*:5562 -i none -n none --collector-port 2062
nprobe --zmq tcp://*:5563 -i none -n none --collector-port 2063
nprobe --zmq tcp://*:5564 -i none -n none --collector-port 2064
nprobe --zmq tcp://*:5565 -i none -n none --collector-port 2065
nprobe --zmq tcp://*:5566 -i none -n none --collector-port 2066
and on my ASA1 I send to 192.168.x.x port 2055, ASA2 I send to
192.168.x.x port 2056 etc.. etc..
In the latest ntopng dev we have added a feature that creates new
interfaces on the basis of the exporter ip address. This means that
you no longer need to spawn multiple nprobe instances. You you can
point all your routers to a single nprobe instance and then enable the
dynamic interface creation from the ntopng preferences page.
You only have to make sure nprobe is sending EXPORTER_IPV4_ADDRESS
template field.
On 08/03/17 15:55, Matt Kettler wrote:
Thank you Luca, but you basically just summarized everything I
already know, and kind of missed the question I was asking.
Is the implementation of netflow on a Cisco 3xxx switch any
better from nprobe's perspective than the ASA?
When you say "move to nprobe", I'm already using nprobe. AFAIK,
it is impossible to avoid using nprobe when collecting netflows,
unless you're using span ports. ie: you can't send netflow from
an ASA directly to ntopng. You have to send it to nprobe for
translation..
If by "move to nprobe" you mean using a span port to allow nprobe
directly collect ethernet frames, that isn't even something I'm
considering. If I bother to set up a span port I may as well just
have ntopng directly ingest the packets.
My two situations are:
ASA Netflow -> nprobe -> ntopng
vs
Cisco Switch Flexible Netflow -> nprobe -> ntopng
I'm not proposing this configuration, which you seem to be
referring to as "nprobe":
Cisco switch span port -> nprobe -> ntopng
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]> on behalf of Luca Deri
<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 8, 2017 1:23 AM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Cc:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [Ntop] asa netflow vs switch flexible netflow
Hi Matt
ASA (like PaloAlto and many others) are firewall devices that
emit flows when the flow starts and when the flow ends, this
adding a verdict (e.g. pass or drop according to firewall rules).
ASA is a family of devices and not all area alike, so
configuration and ASA model can make quite some difference. The
flow format (enclosed an example) is kind of incomplete (e.g.
there is no begin/end of a flow but just the event time) but the
main problem is that the device does not send periodic flow
updates, so in essence you are blind until the flow arrives and
when that happens the bytes/pkts stats are broken because the
flow bytes needs to be spread backwards, making things
complicated in particular for long flows
So with flow-devices that are following the standard such as
nProbe you have near-realtime (near because netflow aggregates
packets so you have a flow exported every X sec, and thus you
have an average values compared to pure packet based apps such as
ntopng) stats and better visibility compared to ASA. This said
nProbe/ntopng also support ASA flows so you have the freedom to
decide if you want to stay with ASA or move to nprobe
Regards Luca
On 8 Mar 2017, at 05:31, Matt Kettler
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
I asked part of this question previously, but it was buried in
another thread where I was trying to fix problems.
I'm currently exporting netflows from an asa and using nprobe on
an evaluation basis to zmq that to ntopng.
However, I'm reading the ASA's implementation of netflow isn't
exactly "flow" oriented, but more based on network security
events, so there's no mid-flow updates, etc.
While it seems like router platforms are "best" for netflow with
ntop, I don't really have one in a useful place in my network. I
could however reconfigure to use a cisco switch to generate
netflow data and use that. I've got a recent model cisco 3xxx
series switch with ipbase licensing, which is capable of
flexible netflow.
Beyond the obvious differences in network visibility caused by
using a different device, are there advantages to flexible
netflow on the switch platforms compared to the ASA platform? Is
the FNF implementation on the current 3xxx series models
comparable with the implementation on router platforms, at least
in terms of how "normal" the flows look to ntopng?
Would there be any problems/benefits with bringing both back to
ntopng? If so, would you do it with separate nprobe instance
feeding a separate zmq to ntopng, or just bring it to the same
probe?
*This e-mail is intended solely for the addressee. Access to
this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you have received
this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately,
delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or disclose
it to anyone else.* *THEINFORMATION IN THIS EMAIL AND ANY
ATTACHMENTS CONSTITUTE THE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION OF FOURTH
DIMENSION ENGINEERING, LLC.* Any disclosure, copying,
distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in
reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Fourth
Dimension is not responsible for any damages caused by your
unauthorized use of the materials in this e-mail.
_______________________________________________
Ntop mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop
<http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop>
*This e-mail is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this
email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you have received this
e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the
e-mail from your computer and do not copy or disclose it to
anyone else.* *THE INFORMATION IN THIS EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS
CONSTITUTE THE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION OF FOURTH DIMENSION
ENGINEERING, LLC.* Any disclosure, copying, distribution or any
action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is
prohibited and may be unlawful. Fourth Dimension is not
responsible for any damages caused by your unauthorized use of
the materials in this e-mail.
_______________________________________________
Ntop mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop
<http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop>
_______________________________________________ Ntop mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop
<http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop>
_______________________________________________
Ntop mailing list
[email protected]
http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop
