nanog mailing list archives
Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX
From: Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi>
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 14:03:02 +0200
On 29 February 2016 at 04:24, Roland Dobbins <rdobbins () arbor net> wrote:
Around here they are currently voting on a law that will require unsampled 1:1 netflow on all data in an ISP network with more than 100 users.That's interesting, given that most larger routers don't support 1:1.
I find that strange, because if you're doing in in HW, doing hash lookup for flow and adding packets and bytes to the counter is cheap. It's expensive having lot of those flows, but incrementing their packet and byte counter isn't. I know that all JNPR Trio kit (MX, T, EX9k...) do 1:1. I guess if you're doing it in LC CPU things are very different. -- ++ytti
Current thread:
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX, (continued)
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX Pavel Odintsov (Feb 29)
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX Roland Dobbins (Feb 29)
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX Edward Dore (Feb 29)
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX Pavel Odintsov (Feb 29)
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX Edward Dore (Feb 29)
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX Pavel Odintsov (Feb 29)
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX Nick Hilliard (Feb 29)
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX Nick Hilliard (Feb 29)
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX Nikolay Shopik (Feb 29)
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX Pavel Odintsov (Feb 29)
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX Saku Ytti (Feb 29)
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX sthaug (Feb 29)
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX Saku Ytti (Feb 29)
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX Nick Hilliard (Feb 29)
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX Saku Ytti (Feb 29)
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX Phil Bedard (Feb 29)
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX Saku Ytti (Feb 29)
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX Avi Freedman (Feb 28)