Search Results

Search found 5 results on 1 pages for 'netflows'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

  • On RouterOS, how will transparent proxying (with DNAT) affect reporting of netflows?

    - by Tim
    I have a box running Mikrotik RouterOS, which is set up to do transparent web proxying, as described here. In short, this means that I have a firewall rule for destination NAT causing any port 80 traffic to get redirected to port 8080 on the router, which is received by the Mikrotik local web proxy. The local web proxy then makes the web request on the client's behalf, in this case to a parent web proxy server (which in turn does the real web request). My question is, how will this two-part process get reported in the logging of traffic flow information (netflows)? Looking at the logged information, what I seem to be seeing is this: One flow recorded from client machine (private IP) to remote proxy (8080) Another flow recorded from router to remote proxy (8080) The original request that the client made to port 80 isn't recorded. I want to write code to analyse traffic usage, so I want to be sure I'm not losing information if I discard the latter of these.

    Read the article

  • Monitoring Bandwidth Usage (Per Internal IP) - Cisco ASA 5505

    - by Joseph Sturtevant
    I manage a small network with a Cisco ASA 5505 and a shared DSL connection. I would like to be able monitor the bandwidth usage of the various users/devices on my network (by IP). Can I do that using the ASA? Has anyone got this working? What is the best way to do this? Some Ideas I Have Seen Online: SNMP with a tool like Cacti Does this give per IP usage with an ASA or just overall usage? Netflow with a tool like ntop Couldn't get this to work. It seems that the Netflows sent by ASA are not exactly standard. Ntop receives them, but doesn't seem to know what do with them.

    Read the article

  • Solution to route/proxy SNMP Traps (or Netflow, generic UDP, etc) for network monitoring?

    - by Christopher Cashell
    I'm implementing a network monitoring solution for a very large network (approximately 5000 network devices). We'd like to have all devices on our network send SNMP traps to a single box (technically this will probably be an HA pair of boxes) and then have that box pass the SNMP traps on to the real processing boxes. This will allow us to have multiple back-end boxes handling traps, and to distribute load among those back end boxes. One key feature that we need is the ability to forward the traps to a specific box depending on the source address of the trap. Any suggestions for the best way to handle this? Among the things we've considered are: Using snmptrapd to accept the traps, and have it pass them off to a custom written perl handler script to rewrite the trap and send it to the proper processing box Using some sort of load balancing software running on a Linux box to handle this (having some difficulty finding many load balancing programs that will handle UDP) Using a Load Balancing Appliance (F5, etc) Using IPTables on a Linux box to route the SNMP traps with NATing We've currently implemented and are testing the last solution, with a Linux box with IPTables configured to receive the traps, and then depending on the source address of the trap, rewrite it with a destination nat (DNAT) so the packet gets sent to the proper server. For example: # Range: 10.0.0.0/19 Site: abc01 Destination: foo01 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p udp --dport 162 -s 10.0.0.0/19 -j DNAT --to-destination 10.1.2.3 # Range: 10.0.33.0/21 Site: abc01 Destination: foo01 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p udp --dport 162 -s 10.0.33.0/21 -j DNAT --to-destination 10.1.2.3 # Range: 10.1.0.0/16 Site: xyz01 Destination: bar01 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p udp --dport 162 -s 10.1.0.0/16 -j DNAT --to-destination 10.3.2.1 This should work with excellent efficiency for basic trap routing, but it leaves us completely limited to what we can mach and filter on with IPTables, so we're concerned about flexibility for the future. Another feature that we'd really like, but isn't quite a "must have" is the ability to duplicate or mirror the UDP packets. Being able to take one incoming trap and route it to multiple destinations would be very useful. Has anyone tried any of the possible solutions above for SNMP traps (or Netflow, general UDP, etc) load balancing? Or can anyone think of any other alternatives to solve this?

    Read the article

  • On Mikrotik RouterOS, is it possible to get Netflow information from a bridged connection?

    - by Tim
    I have a RouterOS box set up to bridge two ethernet connections. I have use-ip-firewall=yes in the bridge configuration, so that the ports go through the firewall. I've enabled netflow reporting via ip/traffic-flow, but the only packets I see reported are broadcast and multicast packets, not the packets that are flowing through the bridge. The documentation indicates that traffic flow logging happens after firewall processing and that it won't work with bridged connections by default, but I would have thought that use-ip-firewall=yes ought to address this. Is it possible to make this work somehow?

    Read the article

1