Re: Issues with SNMP monitoring over a GRE tunnel.

2014-11-05 Thread Gregory Moberg
This would be a good approach.  In SNMP the request initiator (the one
sending the SNMP 'Get' or 'GetNext' or 'GetBulk' ) can anticipate the size
of the outgoing request will be small(er) by asking for fewer variables at
a time.  (Each variable is a 'varbind' and each is specified in the
outgoing request packet as an OID.)  But it sometime impossible to know how
large the return size will be.  The SNMP Agent responding the to request
will load up the return UDP packet with the required data and this could be
quite large - depending on what is being requested.  Thus, it is good to
ask for fewer variables at a time thus hopefully keeping the SNMP Agent
from responding with something that will prove too large to the MTU barrier
that is being hit somewhere along the transitioned network path.

'GetBulk' would seem to be the worst enemy regarding this.

Of course some returns are very small per-variable.  'ifInOctets' is a
32bit integer.  'ifHCInOctets' is a 64bit integer. Etc.  These are not
likely the problem.  Issues will occur when fetching octet strings such as
'ifDescr' or 'sysLocation' - there can be times when these values have been
loaded up the remote SNMP Agent with quite a substantial response.

On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Jeff Walter jwal...@weebly.com wrote:

 I think the simple solution here is to query for fewer OIDs to get the
 packet size (in both directions) down below the MTU. It'll take more
 requests and thus longer, but if that's what solves the problem... well,
 that's what solves the problem.

 On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 7:59 AM, Brian Christopher Raaen 
 mailing-li...@brianraaen.com wrote:

  I have two different customers where I am unable to monitor their
 networks
  due to GRE MTU issues.  This is monitoring cable modems so I can't change
  the MTU of the end device.  The problem I am having is that the modems
 are
  producing frames that appear to be larger than some kind of MTU limit in
  the system (we do not control the customer routers in either case).  One
  that I am looking at is dropping anything larger than 1472, and I have
 let
  to tune down on the other one.  In one case the customer endpoint is a
  Cisco ASR1K router and the other is a ASR9K.  because these are UDP
 packets
  I can't use a mss to clamp things down.  Also I have been unable to
  replicate the issue in my lab, so I can't send them a list of commands to
  help fix the issue on their end.
 
  --
  Brian Christopher Raaen
  Network Architect
  Zcorum
 




-- 
Greg Moberg, Director, NerveCenter Engineering
LogMatrix, Inc |  http://www.logmatrix.com/ | CommunityForum
http://community.logmatrix.com/LogMatrix/ | Blog
http://www.logmatrix.com/Blog
Telephone: +1 (800)892-3646
http://www.logmatrix.com http://www.twitter.com/NerveCenter
http://www.linkedin.com/company/logmatrix?trk=ppro_cprof
https://www.facebook.com/Logmatrix?sk=page_insights
http://www.youtube.com/user/logmatrixchannel


Re: Marriott wifi blocking

2014-10-04 Thread Gregory Moberg
I would think this would not sit very well with the providers.  They've
likely installed equip nearby to the hotel  conv.ctr in order to
adequately handle the concentration of devices at that location.  True?

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Michael O Holstein 
michael.holst...@csuohio.edu wrote:

 legality is questionable insofar as this device must not cause harmful
 interference of PartB
 but how it works is by sending DEAUTH packets with spoofed MAC addresses
 rouge AP response on Cisco/Aruba works like this.

 Regards,

 Michael Holstein
 Cleveland State University
 
 From: NANOG nanog-boun...@nanog.org on behalf of David Hubbard 
 dhubb...@dino.hostasaurus.com
 Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 4:06 PM
 To: NANOG
 Subject: Marriott wifi blocking

 Saw this article:

 http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/03/travel/marriott-fcc-wi-fi-fine/

 The interesting part:

 'A federal investigation of the Gaylord Opryland Resort and
 Convention Center in Nashville found that Marriott employees
 had used containment features of a Wi-Fi monitoring system
 at the hotel to prevent people from accessing their own
 personal Wi-Fi networks.'

 I'm aware of how the illegal wifi blocking devices work, but
 any idea what legal hardware they were using to effectively
 keep their own wifi available but render everyone else's
 inaccessible?

 David




-- 
Greg Moberg, Director, NerveCenter Engineering
LogMatrix, Inc |  http://www.logmatrix.com/ | CommunityForum
http://community.logmatrix.com/LogMatrix/ | Blog
http://www.logmatrix.com/Blog
Telephone: +1 (800)892-3646
http://www.logmatrix.com http://www.twitter.com/NerveCenter
http://www.linkedin.com/company/logmatrix?trk=ppro_cprof
https://www.facebook.com/Logmatrix?sk=page_insights
http://www.youtube.com/user/logmatrixchannel