From: "Q" <theq@rogers.com>
To: "'Joel Wirāmu Pauling'" <joel@aenertia.net>
Cc: bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [Bridge] Sniffing a linux bridge vs sniffing enslaved interfaces
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:39:49 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <031001d04a39$7a1e45e0$6e5ad1a0$@rogers.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKiAkGT_2Ce9jWvQYgJ2PfRNAoKTAmoQ2aBPYCy-z8MjJi4zGQ@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2123 bytes --]
Thanks Joel
I have the feeling that you are using developer terms which I don’t totally udersta
I will rephrase what I believe you said below, just to make sure that I got the idea:
Eth0ßà br0ßàeth1
From what you are saying if I sniff eth0 only there is chances that I will miss L1 traffic injected by the host or by the other eth1
If eth0 and eht1 have respectively vlan 1 and vlan 2 the only way to sniff both simultaneously would be by sniffing br0
There are also L1-L2 packet originated by br0 that might be misses
Are these correct?
Thanks
Q
From: aenertia@aenertia.net [mailto:aenertia@aenertia.net] On Behalf Of Joel Wiramu Pauling
Sent: February-16-15 5:17 PM
To: The Q
Cc: bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [Bridge] Sniffing a linux bridge vs sniffing enslaved interfaces
I can think of several potential differences. You may miss any bridge specific traffic (STP, LLDP) using the interfaces generated by the bridge itself.
If you have vlan tagged sub interfaces you might also miss that traffic if you were snooping a particular interface. Obviously you will miss any on-wire broadcast traffic specific to the layer1 connection a particular interface was connected to if you sniff on an individual device.
Basically unless you are trying to trouble shoot a physical link issue I would likely always use the container link when doing a packet dump, due to several edge cases.
If your bridge node host is participating (i.e has an IP etc on the br0 device itself , rather than in the case of a container for Vtap's/Virtual machine nics') You would also miss the hypervisors/hosts traffic if you sniffed the contained nics.
-Joel
On 16 February 2015 at 15:35, The Q <theq@rogers.com> wrote:
Hi all
Assume that you have a linux bridge with two interfaces eth0 and eth1 enslaved to this bridge
What is the difference between sniffing the bridge and sniffing its interfaces?
tcpdump -i br0 vs tcpdump –i eth0
Thanks
MiniME
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8922 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-16 22:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-02-16 21:35 [Bridge] Sniffing a linux bridge vs sniffing enslaved interfaces The Q
2015-02-16 22:17 ` Joel Wirāmu Pauling
2015-02-16 22:28 ` Stephen Hemminger
2015-02-16 22:39 ` Q [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='031001d04a39$7a1e45e0$6e5ad1a0$@rogers.com' \
--to=theq@rogers.com \
--cc=bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=joel@aenertia.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox