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

[Justin Hayek]

+1 on the article.

-Justin

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 4:53 PM, Michał Purzyński <michalpurzynski1 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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](mailto:scwang%2Bbro 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/20200206/7dbded4f/attachment.html