Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!lll-winken!rogue.llnl.gov!oberman
From: oberman@rogue.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.sys.cisco
Subject: Re: Interfaces statics don't jibe with Sniffer's
Message-ID: <1990Sep1.130728.1@rogue.llnl.gov>
Date: 1 Sep 90 20:07:28 GMT
References: <25514@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Sender: usenet@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV
Lines: 24

In article <25514@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, pleticha@mpad.span.nasa.gov (Dennis Pleticha/MDSSC-ESD @ (713) 283-4207) writes:
> 
> I've noticed that the interfaces statics from our cisco don't correlate well 
> with those of the Network General Sniffer hanging off the same interface.  
> In particulare collisions, framing errors, runts, and CRC errors reported by
> the cisco router is orders of magnitude greater than those of the Sniffer! 
> Who do I believe and/or should I be concerned?

My experience with the Sniffer is that it is a good protocol analyzer, but a
so-so network analyzer. I also use an HP analyzer and it shows far more errors
and such than the Sniffer. Because the Sniffer uses a more or less standard
interface, it can't seem to see some types of errors. The HP has a fully custom
interface and seem to catch EVERYTHING. (But it's not much of a protocol
analyzer.)

I suspect that the counts on the cisco are correct.

					R. Kevin Oberman
					Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
					Internet: oberman@icdc.llnl.gov
   					(415) 422-6955

Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing
and probably don't really know anything useful about anything.