rc.35 backward compatibility issues

[Carter Bullard]

Hey Phillipp and Robin,
I've made the changes for this issue, and fixed a few other's, esp  
percent loss,
and the icmp's (as you pointed out) were also missing.
Should be up either this afternoon, or on Monday.

Carter


On Dec 12, 2006, at 8:50 AM, Philipp E. Letschert wrote:

> Hi,
>
> attached patch should fix that issue, tested with 2.0 and 3.0 files  
> where loss
> was recorded. Please confirm that it doesn't break other stuff.
>
> I also added the routine to print the total loss percantage  
> (ploss), that never
> showed up either for 2.0 or 3.0 files.
>
> Then I noticed that there are no routines to report ICMP_IPV6 loss,  
> but i didn't
> touch this.
>
>
> Bye, Philipp
>
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 01:12:31PM +0000, carter at qosient.com wrote:
>> Hey Robin,
>> That may not have been addressed, although sometimes, when you fix  
>> one bug, you get several as a bonus :o)
>> If not, I may need some specific test records that express the  
>> problem, so if anyone sees the issue, or any problems, don't  
>> hesitate to send a few records my way!!!
>>
>> Carter
>>
>> Carter Bullard
>> QoSient LLC
>> 150 E. 57th Street Suite 12D
>> New York, New York 10022
>> +1 212 588-9133 Phone
>> +1 212 588-9134 Fax
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Robin Gruyters <r.gruyters at yirdis.nl>
>> Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:21:02
>> To:argus-info at lists.andrew.cmu.edu
>> Subject: Re: [ARGUS] rc.35 backward compatibility issues
>>
>> Hi ya,
>>
>> I have just downloaded .rc36 and was wondering if the backward
>> compatibility with [s|d]loss was fixed..
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin Gruyters
>> Network and Security Engineer
>> Yirdis B.V.
>> I: http://yirdis.com
>> P: +31 (0)36 5300394
>> F: +31 (0)36 5489119
>>
>>
>> Quoting Carter Bullard <carter at qosient.com>:
>>
>>> Hey Philipp,
>>> Yes, you are correct, the man record processing may seem  a bit  
>>> weird,
>>> and there is a very long story to explain the current state of
>>> affairs, that result in client programs not seeing "INIT" man  
>>> records.
>>>
>>> However, I suspect that we should do something that doesn't generate
>>> confusion.  So, I'll put in initial man record counting, and  
>>> we'll see how
>>> that goes.
>>>
>>> I thought we fixed the [s|d]appbytes 2.x processing?  Do you have  
>>> a small
>>> set of records ( >= 1) that shows the error?
>>>
>>> And, I'm not aware of the srcid getting screwed up, so if you  
>>> have a set
>>> of records that show that, and what the number is suppose to be,  
>>> that
>>> would be most excellent.
>>>
>>> Carter
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 18, 2006, at 12:40 PM, Philipp E. Letschert wrote:
>>>
>>>> When reading 2.0.6 logfiles with ra 3.x I noticed two oddities:
>>>>
>>>> - some of the 'man' records are not read at all, so the number of
>>>> records is not
>>>>  in sync with the output of racount. It looks that the missed  
>>>> ones are the
>>>>  first entries, that are generated when argus starts and creates or
>>>>  appends to
>>>>  a logfile.
>>>>  Probably as a result of this, most of the 'srcid' entries are  
>>>> screwed up.
>>>>  There are addresses like 5.0.0.66, 5.112.0.66, 5.168.0.66 and  
>>>> so on.
>>>>
>>>> - when reading 2.0.6 files with ra 3.x the entries for loss, sloss
>>>> and dloss are
>>>>  always zero, even when loss was recorded
>>>>
>>>> I can live with that - just to let you know...
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
>   /-\
>  C oo   "Das beste Werkzeug wird zum Tand in eines tumben Toren Hand."
>  _( ^)                                               Daniel Düsentrieb
> /   -\
> <argus_util.c.patch>

Carter Bullard
CEO/President
QoSient, LLC
150 E. 57th Street Suite 12D
New York, New York 10022

+1 212 588-9133 Phone
+1 212 588-9134 Fax


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist1.pair.net/pipermail/argus/attachments/20061215/6eadafaf/attachment.html>