["Visser, Martin (SNO)" <Martin.Visser@xxxxxxxxxx>]

As mentioned earlier this is basically what ntop does. I guess you might
want to look at adding finer grained protocol stats to do this. I will be
adding stats analysis as part of the graphical enhancements I'm doing
<http://opensource.compaq.com/sourceforge/project/?group_id=16>

At the moment I'm just working on using the "colorization" display filters
to separate stats out.

I guess the problem is that if you use the ntop model, you need to know what
you are looking for up front, because you throw the raw data away. Ethereal
however allows you to analyse things iteratively, as it retains all the raw
data. 

Martin

Martin Visser
Technology Consultant - Compaq Global Services

Compaq Computer Australia
410 Concord Road
Rhodes, Sydney NSW 2138
Australia

Phone: +61-2-9022-5630
Mobile: +61-411-254-513
Fax:+61-2-9022-7001
Email:martin.visser@xxxxxxxxxx


-----Original Message-----
From: McNutt, Justin M. [mailto:McNuttJ@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, 4 December 2000 4:14 AM
To: 'Guy Harris'
Cc: 'ethereal-users@xxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: [Ethereal-users] Truly infinite capture


> I.e., you want all of Ethereal except for the part that dissects
> packets? :-)

Not exactly.  I want all of Ethereal, but once it has dissected a packet, I
want it to keep the analysis in a counter and throw away the actual packet.
Therefore, the capture can run almost infinitely (to the limit of the
counter, which would need to be a 32-bit counter in my case).

The reason is this:  I have a fast, highly-utilized connection (the
connection from MU to the Internet).  It puts about 2.7 million packets
through this link every five minutes.  Now there's NO WAY I'm going to be
able to capture that much data, but if I could get a breakdown of what was
IN those packets at some level, that would be incredibly useful.  E.g.:

ICMP: 10,514 (0.1%)
HTTP: 1,302,351 (55.2%)
DNS: 25,124 (0.2%)
Other TCP: 401,415 (4.2%)

...etc.

In this case, I don't want to know what the URL was, or what name was looked
up, or even the src/dst IP addresses.  I just want to know what *kind* of
packets went through the link and how many.  If the majority is HTTP, I can
justify buying a Web caching server and setting up a transparent proxy.
However, if it's all FTP, I need to find out where it's coming from (usually
somebody's hacked RedHat 6.1 vanilla install).

> That might be a useful program, but I'm not sure it needs to 
> be part of
> Ethereal; the statistics shown in the capture window are - quite
> intentionally - fairly limited (the idea is that you don't want to do
> any dissection past the transport layer while you're 
> capturing, as doing
> more dissection work to figure out the protocols used *above* the
> transport layer could significantly increase the CPU requirements), so
> it's not clear how much of Ethereal's code would actually be useful.

Just to the TCP/UDP port number, which implicitly gives you the higher-level
protocol (port 80 = HTTP, port 25 = SMTP).  In this case, we can trust the
port number since the number of things masquerading on a port are going to
be the insignificant minority of traffic (and could be listed as a
limitation of the stats-only mode).

> A more detailed breakdown, showing how much of the traffic 
> was HTTP and
> how much was NFS and how much was SMTP and so on, might be useful, and
> (especially if it does *all* the analysis that Ethereal does, 
> including
> the heuristic tests, watching traffic for protocol A to see if it's
> saying that a subsequent connection will be using protocol B, 
> etc.), and
> *would* use the Ethereal dissection code, but I'm not certain 
> you'd want
> that by default during a regular Ethereal capture.

No, you certainly wouldn't want it by default.  It would have to be a
checkbox that said something like "Statistics Only", and a tab in the
preferences window that allowed you to pick and choose the protocols you
wanted to watch for.  Then if a user selects a layer 7 protocol, a warning
could come up when you click OK that says, "You're asking for it, buddy."

After that, Ethereal should forgo the heuristics and connection-level
analysis that it usually does and simply take each packet and say, "Which
counters need to be incremented?", increment them, and then toss the packet
into the bit bucket.

Of course, the stats window would need to persist after you click Stop so
you could write down/store your totals.  Click once to Stop, change Stop
button to Close.  Click again to destroy the window.  In fact, that might be
useful for every capture (perhaps as a selectable option... "Stats window
persists" (checkbox)).

Personally, I'd go GET a machine with more CPU to throw at this if that were
the problem, but that's just me.  I have the luxury of a 1GHz P-III.  Would
that be enough horsepower to try this out, perhaps on a slower connection
first, and then on the real McCoy?

--J

P.S.  I'd be happy to help write this code myself, but I'll need a little
help getting started.  It's been years since I wrote C (although I've been
writing a lot of Perl lately, which helps).

_______________________________________________
Ethereal-users mailing list
Ethereal-users@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.ethereal.com/mailman/listinfo/ethereal-users