[Zeek] "bro-cluster-in-a-box-setup" to "zeek-cluster-in-a-box-setup"?

[Michał Purzyński]

Sure, you can run af_packet on any device, including
device-made-of-devices, any virtual and physical interface and a
combination thereof. The whole af_packet mechanism (they call it "taps"
internally) works on a higher level.

Now let's address the elephant in the room, shall we.

IPv4 is correctly hashed on relatively modern kernels (I believe RHEL 7.4
has a fix for that) - so you can use the cluster_flow mode.
IPv6 seems to have problems, sometimes - I can see it correctly hashed most
of the time (but not always).

What we do on production, is we let card hash packets by src + dst IP
address (and never ports, because fragments don't have port numbers), with
the symmetric key, offloading disabled, correct number of queues set and
cluster_qm.

If the community is interested I can have an article out in a week - just
need to know if there's someone who wants that?

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 2:30 PM Justin Hayek <jdhayek at protonmail.com> wrote:

> You can absolutely do this. We are using af_packet and bonded interfaces
> throughout the majority of our deployments (approximately 1800 sensors).
>
> We decided on af_packet as it was included in recent (at the time 2yrs
> ago) kernels. I can't speak to non-Debian based distro's, but we haven't
> seen any issues related to the use of af_packet.
>
> -Justin
>
>
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Thursday, February 6, 2020 7:04 AM, Joe Blow <blackhole.em at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Would love to hear this confirmed with no performance issues.
>
> Cheers,
>
> JB
>
> Sent via BlackBerry Hub+ Inbox for Android
> <http://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.blackberry.hub>
> *From:* justin at corelight.com
> *Sent:* February 5, 2020 5:26 PM
> *To:* michalpurzynski1 at gmail.com
> *Cc:* Paul.Sibley at canarie.ca; zeek at zeek.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Zeek] "bro-cluster-in-a-box-setup" to
> "zeek-cluster-in-a-box-setup"?
> OOOH!  You can bond two interfaces together and run af_packet on the bond0
> interface? that works?!?
>
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 5:13 PM Michał Purzyński <
> michalpurzynski1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There's a law that if you say pf_ring and af_packet 3 times, Michal shows
>> up.
>>
>> I don't see many (any?) reasons for using pf_ring, TBH, if you have a
>> modern kernel or a decent network card (Mellanox, Intel, etc). And I still
>> owe the community the article to show how to use the af_packet correctly :/
>>
>> The case where one has inputs from multiple taps, to multiple network
>> ports will be handled the same way by af_packet, if interfaces are bonded
>> or bridged and by pf_ring. None of them buffers data and processes them at
>> L4 and deals with out of order, etc.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 2:04 PM Scott Wang <scwang+bro at sfu.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> At the Canarie workshop, Steve Smoot from Corelight suggested using
>>> pf_ring still. Any thoughts/comments on switching to af_packet? Advantages
>>> vs Disadvantages?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> On Feb 05, 2020, at 12:48, Justin Azoff <justin at corelight.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> It shouldn't be that hard to update to 3.x..
>>>
>>> - bro-pkg should be swapped out with the renamed zkg
>>> - the python2 references can likely be changed to 3
>>> - caf no longer needs to be installed separately
>>> - geoip and databases needs to be swapped out with maxminddb versions,
>>> might need a license
>>> - probably worth it to switch to af_packet from pf_ring.. pf_ring was
>>> only used initially to easily support capturing directly from both
>>> halves of a tap, which might not be a requirement anymore.
>>>
>>> My schedule is a bit crazy for the next week, but once I have some time
>>> to work on it I should be able to get things updated pretty quickly..
>>> There's really not much to it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 12:38 PM Paul Sibley <Paul.Sibley at canarie.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello Zeek Community,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am working on a project where Zeek has been deployed in two phases.
>>>> During the first phase, some participants used “
>>>> https://github.com/ncsa/bro-cluster-in-a-box-setup” script to assist
>>>> in, and automate a lot of the installation process.
>>>>
>>>> Since then we have entered the phase in our project where more
>>>> participants have been added, CentOS 8 is preferred, and we are using Zeek
>>>> 3.0.1.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if any consideration, or work has been done, in updating the
>>>> bro-cluster-in-a-box script to work with the updated OS and Zeek version.
>>>> Any information would be appreciated.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>>
>>>> Paul Sibley
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Zeek mailing list
>>>> zeek at zeek.org
>>>> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/zeek
>>>> <http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/zeek>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Justin
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Zeek mailing list
>>> zeek at zeek.org
>>> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/zeek
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Zeek mailing list
>>> zeek at zeek.org
>>> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/zeek
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Justin
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/pipermail/zeek/attachments/20200206/5af130c1/attachment-0001.html