[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: patch for hdlc and bonding

To: "iptraf-users@seul.org" <iptraf-users@seul.org>
Subject: RE: patch for hdlc and bonding
From: Raymond Hall <kovalski@msg.com.mx>
Date: 06 Mar 2003 12:50:57 -0600
Delivered-to: archiver@seul.org
Delivered-to: iptraf-users-outgoing@seul.org
Delivered-to: iptraf-users@seul.org
Delivery-date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 13:43:16 -0500
In-reply-to: <91326A1A487FD411A59500508BAEDD9E076BA7D5@icex11.cc.ic.ac.uk>
References: <91326A1A487FD411A59500508BAEDD9E076BA7D5@icex11.cc.ic.ac.uk>
Reply-to: iptraf-users@seul.org
Sender: owner-iptraf-users@seul.org

On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 05:26, Grime, Richard S wrote:

> But... Is there an issue with bonding interfaces that don't have an IP?  I
> still get a packet count, but don't see any traffic analysis...

just out of curiosity, do you have actual IP traffic through those
interfaces? I ask because I don't see ip neither in bond0 nor eth's...
If that is the case, it would explain the issue: IPtraf statistics are
derived from ip frames seen on the device.

regards,
Raymond Hall

-- 
"Even if World War I consisted of nothing but a very, very large number
of quarks in a very, very complicated pattern of motion, no insight is
gained by describing it that way"
Steven Pinker, on reductionism. "The Blank Slate" p. 70

References:
- RE: patch for hdlc and bonding
  - From: "Grime, Richard S" <richard.grime@imperial.ac.uk>

Prev by Date: RE: patch for hdlc and bonding
Next by Date: RE: patch for hdlc and bonding
Previous by thread: RE: patch for hdlc and bonding
Next by thread: RE: patch for hdlc and bonding
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread