| To: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: routable interfaces |
| From: | Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 17 Jan 2001 11:01:43 +0200 |
| Cc: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <200101162023.XAA32644@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 11:23:40PM +0300 |
| References: | <Pine.GSO.4.30.0101152320470.16949-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200101162023.XAA32644@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 11:23:40PM +0300, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hello!
>
> > an issue. secondary addresses for example do not have counters. You have a
> > counters per ifindex only.
>
> Statistics has a sense only per link.
In case of error counters yes, but it make sense to me to have separate
counters for rx\tx bytes
per IP address. After all I want to know how much traffic we routed from one
subnet to another.
>
> Aliases (even not saying about "addresses") do not receive and do not send
> anything, sorry.
>
>
> > useful. It's sort of tricky if you want to generalize for all sorts if
> > tunnels etc;
>
> When you have set of hundred of tunnels, any trick allowing
> to put an order there loses name "trick" and acquires name
> "interface". 8)8)
>
> Alexey
--
Gleb.
|
| Previous by Date: | Re: netlink drops messages., Gleb Natapov |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: routable interfaces, Gleb Natapov |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: routable interfaces, kuznet |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!), Andi Kleen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |