– Great math and I agree that today’s switches are very capable, as switches…–
Time for the reality – SPAN ports-
do not pass bad frames, long or short frames or any malformed
packets – Thus no baseline studies
SPAN pots do not pass VLAN tags – Result you do not know which
VLAN a frame came from and also can result in the same packet being presented
twice or more.
SPAN ports change timing – thus if you are doing any RTP
studies, or timing studies, no jitter and differentiated timing.
Maybe a switch can handle switching, which it was made for but
SPAN is not the priority of a switch and thus issues.
All your math is great and proves that switches can handle their
job but replication is the lowest priority.
Myself and others have tested several switches (to 10G) cheap to
the best and found much variation…even the Mfr’s support the findings.
I do not even want to discuss RSPAN another whole can of issues
SPAN is acceptable for connection studies.
SPAN is NOT acceptable for CALEA access
SPAN is NOT acceptable for Compliance or Audit studies
SPAN capture files can cause issues in court cases, reasonable
are some GREAT switches designed to switch data, they were never designed to be
full diagnostic access tools. If they were the best diagnostic tool at least 9
TAP and 7 access expansion companies would be out of business in a minute but
they are not because they are needed.
am not against using SPAN but knowing what and how is important so one does not
lose sight of the limitations.
are reasonable in cost , no line coding (another major issue to face and can be
the root of many other issues) and with a TAP there is no doubt of what you are
what you wish but be aware on the limitations and you will get the data you
need with accurate timing and no losses.
use SPAN once in a while, to see who is connected to whom, but when I have to
testify or validate security/compliance I will only use a TAP for access. And a
good one that I know has been tested.
is Reality – and the above is reality, no way around it…sorry.
wish everyone Great Success with Less Stress. Let’s end this discussion – all of
the info is out there so those needing to make the decision can do so. It has
been informative for all.
Tim O’Neill - The “Oldcommguy™”
B.T. Solutions, Inc.
Phone – 770-640-0809
Website - www.lovemytool.com
e-mail – Tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
honor and support our Troops, Law Enforcement and First Responders!
Gave Some – Some Gave All!
[mailto:wireshark-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Martin Visser
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 10:21
To: Community support list for
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-users]
Looking for a portable sniffing-friendlyhub/switch
If you are going to funnel what would be a 1Gbps port into a 10Mbps or
100Mbps then you are going to affect any timing far worse than any
All port-mirroring (or VLAN mirroring for that matter) these days is
built into the switch ASICs. It will be either a hardware assisted copy of the
packet buffer or even better just a copy of the pointer to the same buffer.
Latency will be in measured in micro-seconds - and if fact be no different from
the standard switching/routing operation.
Obviously if you are mirroring a duplex link you effectively are
converting to a half-duplex stream. So if you are mirroring a port say with
500Mbps outbound (TX) and 500Mbps inbound (RX) that is going to become a 1Gbps
outbound (TX only) stream on the monitoring port. So I agree there will be some
shifting of packets as they are being interleaved. But for the most part is
going to only a single packet delay. For a full sized 9000 byte jumbo frame at
1Gbps this interleaving delay is only going to be 72 microseconds
(9000*8/10^9). I don't believe there is any one that is going to require a
analyse jitter or delay at any thing better than 1 millisecond, which is 10 times
this packet delay. (I know there are some stock trading floor applications that
are pretty time critical but I doubt delays less than a millisecond are going
to be important).
So I would say for the 99% of people and applications port-mirroring is
going to be better. You have a lot of a flexibility in being able to turn it on
and off with no disruption to the production traffic. You can often mirror 1 or
many ports and even whole or multiple VLANs, as well as allowing remote
monitoring in some circumstances. Taps either need to be installed during an
outage and left in-situ until a further outage can be arranged. Also the taps
that I have used require two ethernet ports for monitoring as a tap separates
out RX and TX traffic. This probably has the same potential interleaving issues
in the wireshark or other sniffer that the port-mirroring will have.
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Oldcommguy - Tim <oldcommguy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The Network Critical
aggregation 10/100 taps have the best aggregation and time assimilation
I have tested them
against many of the others and found them to be one of the best.
Any TAP is going to be
better than a Hub or Switch!!!!
Do NOT use a HUB or
SWITCH if you want to get full access and real timing for your
Read the article here
to help you understand this more –
If you wait till
Sharkfest, there might be some given away by sponsor companies.
Also check e-bay, I
have seen some good TAPs there for under 100.00 – just 10/100.
Have fun - Tim
- The “Oldcommguy™”
Please honor and
support our Troops, Law Enforcement and First Responders!
All Gave Some – Some
90% of what I do
DataCom also sells 1gig aggregation taps (both Tx and Rx are captured)
--- On Fri, 4/9/10, Ian Schorr <ian.schorr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Ian Schorr <ian.schorr@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-users] Looking for a portable sniffing-friendlyhub/switch
To: "Community support list for Wireshark" <wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, April 9, 2010, 4:20 AM
Do you guys
really tend to work with 10/100 links these days?
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
Sent via: Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>