Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for professional system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Does anyone else poll this router with SNMP?

We are using firmware version: 2.0.0.19-tz

We are having problems with the traffic counters, some of them appear to be implemented as 16 bit counter instead of 32 bit counters. The reason this is causing problems is that they roll over (at 65,000) to 0 in less than our minute polling cycle, really skewing our metrics.

The counter for the Lan (interface 2) seems to be functioning properly, however interfaces 3 and 4 (WAN and DMZ / WAN2) rollover at 65000.

Tue May 11 08:38:31 EDT 2010
IF-MIB::ifInOctets.1 = Counter32: 137634
IF-MIB::ifInOctets.2 = Counter32: 1865677943
IF-MIB::ifInOctets.3 = Counter32: 12450
IF-MIB::ifInOctets.4 = Counter32: 49354

Look at counter IF-MIB::ifInOctets.4 5 seconds later:

Tue May 11 08:38:36 EDT 2010
IF-MIB::ifInOctets.1 = Counter32: 137634
IF-MIB::ifInOctets.2 = Counter32: 1865836207
IF-MIB::ifInOctets.3 = Counter32: 13167
IF-MIB::ifInOctets.4 = Counter32: 12900

Any suggestions? Seems like a bug to me, however I just wanted to make sure I wasn't crazy..

Thanks!

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

I'm collecting interface traffic stats with PRTG (via SNMP) and have run into the same issue (same model/firmware, etc.). What are you collecting SNMP values with? Have you experienced this with any tool or just one (I had assumed it was a PRTG issue, recording the values in a 32bit counter rather than a 64bit counter and skewing the delta because of wraparound). Cisco has some discussion on their treatment of SNMP counters here http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk648/tk362/technologies_q_and_a_item09186a00800b69ac.shtml but its not conclusive to this issue (and may not even be relevant for the RV082). Did you resolve the issue or find a workaround?

Thanks for posting.

share|improve this answer
    
We haven't solved it yet, I'm grabbing the raw numbers with snmpwalk, so they should be correct. Let me know if you discover anything. –  Chance Dec 20 '10 at 21:35
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.