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

Scott Wang scwang+bro at sfu.ca
Fri Feb 7 11:29:28 PST 2020 

+1 on the article (or is it +4 now?)


> On Feb 07, 2020, at 05:23, Edgmand, Craig <craig.edgmand at okstate.edu> wrote:
> 
> +1 on the article.
>  
> From: zeek-bounces at zeek.org <zeek-bounces at zeek.org> On Behalf Of Michal Purzynski
> Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2020 4:54 PM
> To: Justin Hayek <jdhayek at protonmail.com>
> Cc: Paul Sibley <Paul.Sibley at canarie.ca>; zeek <zeek at zeek.org>
> Subject: Re: [Zeek] "bro-cluster-in-a-box-setup" to "zeek-cluster-in-a-box-setup"?
>  
> **External Email - Please verify sender email address before responding.**
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fplay.google.com%2Fstore%2Fapps%2Fdetails%3Fid%3Dcom.blackberry.hub&data=02%7C01%7Ccraig.edgmand%40okstate.edu%7C2f7d95d07a784b1410e208d7ab57c87b%7C2a69c91de8494e34a230cdf8b27e1964%7C0%7C0%7C637166265828081603&sdata=M%2F1JueQnIyKgRX7jnBU9gH02YALsQaTDDn0Z%2FAbvIk8%3D&reserved=0>
> From: justin at corelight.com <mailto:justin at corelight.com>
> Sent: February 5, 2020 5:26 PM
> To: michalpurzynski1 at gmail.com <mailto:michalpurzynski1 at gmail.com>
> Cc: Paul.Sibley at canarie.ca <mailto:Paul.Sibley at canarie.ca>; zeek at zeek.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fncsa%2Fbro-cluster-in-a-box-setup&data=02%7C01%7Ccraig.edgmand%40okstate.edu%7C2f7d95d07a784b1410e208d7ab57c87b%7C2a69c91de8494e34a230cdf8b27e1964%7C0%7C0%7C637166265828091568&sdata=fQfU7TwSzNFS71cpv9lJX%2BgJsBMdjMxBlBKsGumxjM0%3D&reserved=0>” 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 <mailto:zeek at zeek.org>
> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/zeek <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.icsi.berkeley.edu%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fzeek&data=02%7C01%7Ccraig.edgmand%40okstate.edu%7C2f7d95d07a784b1410e208d7ab57c87b%7C2a69c91de8494e34a230cdf8b27e1964%7C0%7C0%7C637166265828091568&sdata=GJLJCcUpjnPuIhkuOGUVKOj8pbkiOJjyKbAbgq0H2Nc%3D&reserved=0>
>  
>  
> --
> Justin
> _______________________________________________
> Zeek mailing list
> zeek at zeek.org <mailto:zeek at zeek.org>
> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/zeek <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.icsi.berkeley.edu%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fzeek&data=02%7C01%7Ccraig.edgmand%40okstate.edu%7C2f7d95d07a784b1410e208d7ab57c87b%7C2a69c91de8494e34a230cdf8b27e1964%7C0%7C0%7C637166265828091568&sdata=GJLJCcUpjnPuIhkuOGUVKOj8pbkiOJjyKbAbgq0H2Nc%3D&reserved=0>
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Zeek mailing list
> zeek at zeek.org <mailto:zeek at zeek.org>
> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/zeek <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.icsi.berkeley.edu%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fzeek&data=02%7C01%7Ccraig.edgmand%40okstate.edu%7C2f7d95d07a784b1410e208d7ab57c87b%7C2a69c91de8494e34a230cdf8b27e1964%7C0%7C0%7C637166265828101517&sdata=ZSD4CJbQpeb9pgmH6T8WUB8WpyLcEMrNtMmbVqggq1g%3D&reserved=0>
>  
>  
> --
> Justin
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Zeek mailing list
> zeek at zeek.org
> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/zeek

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/pipermail/zeek/attachments/20200207/5e94f313/attachment-0001.html

More information about the Zeek mailing list