[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 From:  "ALFREDO GONZALEZ" <got2go at msn dot com>
 To:  no dot emails dot plz at netvisao dot pt, m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  RE: [m0n0wall] Status: Inteface question
 Date:  Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:33:05 +0000
>From: "The Unwanted" <no dot emails dot plz at netvisao dot pt>
>To: <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
>Subject: RE: [m0n0wall] Status: Inteface question
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 00:27:05 +0100
>Or using a diferent approach...
>For example havin a Byte counter and also a Kbyte or Mbyte (do I hear
>Gbyte?) counter...
>This would make 32bits much less prone to wrap-around , as the problem is
>actualling having only 32bits to count bytes...
>A Kbyte scaler would be nice (4294967295Kbytes = 4095Gb which far larger,
>and keeping track of each byte on the network is actually too minute INMHO)

This is not the purpose of the interface counters.
It is up to the application using the counters to display it and keep track 
of it however the designer of that application wants to. 64bit counters are 
more common nowadays due to the higher interface speeds available. But, this 
is mainly to allow for longer time-to-wrap for the countersd so proper time 
measurments can be taken.