Re: netstat -s

["J. Hellenthal via NANOG" <nanog () nanog org>]

Personaly I think that circumstance weighs the benifits of the utilities
used to diagnose a problem. Given any instance, you use the utilities
available to you to see that problem through to completion of a proper
result.

The question in hand is very broad but particular to an instance that is
trying to be solved.

1. Dev is trying to weight whether its worth while to consider
diagnosing a problem that considers the use of netstat with an option
that in its legacy use was quite considerable debug output.

2. Regardless of the system the old method is still supported but is the
output still supported and enough to gain evidential knowledge of the
current facts.

3. Will the rseult gathhered by this and the effort be well worth
considering the target be gainful toward the final intended result.


With that said, Randy I personally think that you already have the
annswer that you were looking for given the minimal input ... maybe 3-4
actual interactions of the utility but given that, I think I would sum
it up as people don't know the actual usefulness of netstat(1) these
days and why it was originaly put out there and what they could gain by
instances where they may be required to use it to set themselves on a path
to correct the pronlem they are currently facing.



On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 08:31:38AM -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 05:54:49PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> > do folk use `netstat -s` to help diagnose on routers/switches?
>
> I (mostly) use it on firewalls, but yes, it's something I turn
> to fairly often (along with other incantations of netstat, plus
> lsof and other tools).
>
> ---rsk

-- 
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: