Re: [bwm-tools-tech] Graphing Traffic
Brought to you by:
nkukard
From: go0ogl3 <go...@gm...> - 2005-03-23 18:18:32
|
I'm new to bwm but if you really want to use bwm tools to graph voip traffic, why don't u use the nfmark? You only have to mark the packets from the voip and shape them with bwm tools. This way you can also graph that voip traffic. As an alternate solution you can use ipfm, bandwidthd, mrtg+rrdtool or one of the many others. Google On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 10:46:55 -0700, Adam M. Towarnyckyj <ad...@co...> wrote: > > > Thanks to all for your help in getting this up and running for me. Now I > have some technical questions involving the graphing portion. As stated in > an earlier post, I am trying to graph voip traffic over our network to see > what kind of usage we're running into. All I need is bandwidth usage in > bytes for any given time period. Nigel tells me this is possible. I set up > my config file as follows: > > > > <firewall> > > <global> > > <modules> > > <load name="ip_queue"/> > > </modules> > > <class name="voip_traffic"> > > <address name="voip_dst" proto="udp" src-port="10000:20000" /> > > </class> > > </global> > > <traffic> > > <flow name="voip_traffic_out" report-timeout="60"> > > voip_traffic > > </flow> > > </traffic> > > </firewall> > > > > Question one starts here. Is it ok for me to use the standard symbol for > specifying a range of ports like that? (10000:20000) If that's not correct, > is there another way to go about doing this? I'd rather not go through and > write an <address> for each port from 10000 to 20000. J > > Question two is "what am I doing wrong?" because this isn't working. "bwmd" > loads, but there is no output to any log files even though I have > "report-timeout" specified. I don't want to do any sort of limiting of this > traffic; I just want to log it. > > > > If you have any suggestions on what I can change to make this work, they'd > be very much appreciated. If I can't get bwm_tools to do what I'm looking > for, I have no other ideas on how to accomplish this. Thanks! > > > > Adam Towarnyckyj |