Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Feature Request] Improve the dot output #875

Closed
jmanteau opened this issue Dec 17, 2023 · 1 comment
Closed

[Feature Request] Improve the dot output #875

jmanteau opened this issue Dec 17, 2023 · 1 comment
Labels
duplicate This issue or pull request already exists

Comments

@jmanteau
Copy link

Today, the dot output is quite basic and put only the IP in the node.
Ideally, it should have the reverse DNS added as well as the latency added on the edge (between nodes as well as cumulative).

The end vision should be to style as well the dot output to be able to achieve something closer to what mtraceroute does : https://wiki.networksecuritytoolkit.org/nstwiki/index.php/HowTo_Use_The_Scapy:Multi-Traceroute-_MTR

@fujiapple852
Copy link
Owner

fujiapple852 commented Dec 19, 2023

Hi @jmanteau,

Yes the initial version of the DOT report that ships with Trippy 0.9.0 is very basic. I did start working on an enriched version (#797) but did not get it finished in time (see the screenshot of the WIP output).

I like the idea of showing latency on the edges, that is not something I had considered. Grouping nodes by AS was something I was thinking about adding, it looks nice in the example you linked to. Is that example produced as a DOT file? Do you have the DOT file for reference?

One thing that I think is needed here is the ability for users to specify parameters when invoking reports, for example to show either flows or latency on edges for the DOT report. I think to do this these reports should become subcommand such that multiple per-subcommand flags could be added, so as a fictional example:

trip dot --edge-value cumulative-latency -C 10 example.com

Anyway I'll close this issue in favour of #797 as they are essentially duplicates and we can continue the conversation there.

@fujiapple852 fujiapple852 closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Dec 19, 2023
@fujiapple852 fujiapple852 added duplicate This issue or pull request already exists and removed triage labels Dec 19, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
duplicate This issue or pull request already exists
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants