2016-03-16 01:30 AM
Hi everyone,
I'm looking to deploy a Virtual Packet Decoder but using a Physical network tap. There are documents surrounding the use of vSwitch promiscuous mode and Virtual taps, but nothing around physical taps.
I do realise that if I use a physical tap that virtual machine will be 'locked' to the physical host and a particular physical interface on that esx host.
Has anyone done this before?
Thanks.
2017-01-18 04:06 AM
Hi Kevin,
Sorry to revive a very old thread. I was wondering if you could ask your VM guys what they've configured for the network tap?
I went to move our taps over to the virtual today and was getting nothing.
I configured a separate vSwitch for the physical interfaces and assigned a network card to the VM decoder that was on that switch.
Configured the decoder to capture on that interface in the NetWitness config.
I know I'm just missing something really tiny.
Thanks for your help.
2016-03-17 04:58 PM
We have a virtualized packet decoder. Our taps feed into aggregation systems by Gigamon. The Gigamon then provides these "raw" feeds as a "datafeed" that we drop to the network card on the decoder. In this instance a virtual NIC associated to the VM. If you want I can reach out to my VM team and see what is configured on the vSwitch side.
2017-01-18 04:06 AM
Hi Kevin,
Sorry to revive a very old thread. I was wondering if you could ask your VM guys what they've configured for the network tap?
I went to move our taps over to the virtual today and was getting nothing.
I configured a separate vSwitch for the physical interfaces and assigned a network card to the VM decoder that was on that switch.
Configured the decoder to capture on that interface in the NetWitness config.
I know I'm just missing something really tiny.
Thanks for your help.
2017-01-24 04:50 PM
I figured out what my issue was. I wasn't seeing any packet traffic on the virtual decoder.
I have to configure VLAN 4095 on the PortGroup in order to see everything the tap was sending to the virtual switch.
2017-01-26 03:53 PM
Good to know! Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, apologies for that.