Knowledge Management

Macro optimization

chlima
Explorer

Hi,

I've created a macro to convert IPv6 (IP field) to IPv4 connotation (Ex: 0000000000000000000000FFFF0a0a0a0a > 10.10.10.10)

Is that:

| eval a=tonumber(substr(IP,25,2))
| eval a=tonumber(substr(IP,27,2))
| eval a=tonumber(substr(IP,29,2))
| eval a=tonumber(substr(IP,31,2))
| IP = a+"."+b+"."+c+"."+d

Someone know another method more efficient to do it optimizing the macro execution?

0 Karma
1 Solution

woodcock
Esteemed Legend

You can swap 4 substr commands with a single rex command and that should be very much quicker like this:

| rex field=32BitIP "(?i)(?<JuNkT3Mp_1>[0-9A-F]{2})(?<JuNkT3Mp_2>[0-9A-F]{2})(?<JuNkT3Mp_3>[0-9A-F]{2})(?<JuNkT3Mp_4>[0-9A-F]{2})"
| eval IP = tostring(tonumber(JuNkT3Mp_1,16)) . "."
          . tostring(tonumber(JuNkT3Mp_2,16)) . "." 
          . tostring(tonumber(JuNkT3Mp_3,16)) . "."
          . tostring(tonumber(JuNkT3Mp_4,16))
| fields - JuNkT3Mp*

View solution in original post

0 Karma

woodcock
Esteemed Legend

You can swap 4 substr commands with a single rex command and that should be very much quicker like this:

| rex field=32BitIP "(?i)(?<JuNkT3Mp_1>[0-9A-F]{2})(?<JuNkT3Mp_2>[0-9A-F]{2})(?<JuNkT3Mp_3>[0-9A-F]{2})(?<JuNkT3Mp_4>[0-9A-F]{2})"
| eval IP = tostring(tonumber(JuNkT3Mp_1,16)) . "."
          . tostring(tonumber(JuNkT3Mp_2,16)) . "." 
          . tostring(tonumber(JuNkT3Mp_3,16)) . "."
          . tostring(tonumber(JuNkT3Mp_4,16))
| fields - JuNkT3Mp*
0 Karma

lguinn2
Legend

Why not

IP = tonumber(substr(IP,25,2),16) . "." . tonumber(substr(IP,27,2),16) . "." . tonumber(substr(IP,29,2),16) . "." . tonumber(substr(IP,31,2),16)

although I have no idea if that will actually be faster. It will work, because you have to specify the "16" to get it to convert from hex.

(edited to fix the problem mentioned in the comments - replaced "+" with ".", which is concatenation)

0 Karma

woodcock
Esteemed Legend

4 passes to substr vs. 1 pass to rex in mine (should be 4x faster)

0 Karma

chlima
Explorer

Thanks for the answer lguinn, but it's returning an error.

Error in 'eval' command: Typechecking failed. '+' only takes two strings or two numbers.

So it that i've defined four variables (a,b,c,d).

0 Karma
Got questions? Get answers!

Join the Splunk Community Slack to learn, troubleshoot, and make connections with fellow Splunk practitioners in real time!

Meet up IRL or virtually!

Join Splunk User Groups to connect and learn in-person by region or remotely by topic or industry.

Get Updates on the Splunk Community!

Persistent Queue at TcpOut — One of Splunk's Most Practical Features

Splunk introduced persistent queueing at the tcpout layer as one of the most practical resilience features in ...

Skip the Awkward Silence: Have a .conf-ersation at .conf26

Picture this. You arrive at .conf26 already having your socializing and networking plans mapped out. No ...

Rethinking Zero Trust: From Product Purchases to Logical Control Evidence

Implementing Zero Trust (ZT) across complex environments often falters at the very beginning due to a ...