Request : advanced iptable feature

[Tarjaizaid]

this request concern irc conversation of the 28/02

Currently, the port.pm feature add iptable chain to monitoring usage for a port/application.

I think it would be more flexible to let the user choose a specific rule by the number rule.

Here is some reason :

The addition of rule is CPU resource consumer. With number rule, you are not limited to port.pm possibility but iptable possibility. it will be possible to monitore a complex iptable rule for various application or specifique rule (reject for example) Less devellopement ?

An example for the configuration

Myapplication-4,v4,out,[filter,OUPUT,43] Myapplication-4,v4,in,[filter,INPUT,24] Myapplication-6,v6,out,[filter,OUPUT,21] Myapplication-6,v6,in,[filter,INPUT,5]

Myapplication-4 = The graph name v4 = to use iptables (v6 for ip6tables) in/out = for input/ouput graph [..] the iptable hierarchy

Another exemple

Test1,v4,in,[filter,FORWARD,4] Test1,v4,out,[filter,FORWARD,5]

Why not add graph for packet/s ?

Thanks

[mikaku]

Tarjaizaid,

I don't know what means in and out in these example configurations and what relationship have with the INPUT and OUTPUT keys.

Can you elaborate a bit more?

Thanks.

[Tarjaizaid]

"in" and "out" is only for monitorix to specify the "chart bar" for a rule is it possible to have more than 2 "chart bar" on a graph ?

let me know if my answer is ambiguous. Thx