nanog mailing list archives
Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX
From: Nick Hilliard <nick () foobar org>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 22:45:26 +0000
Peter Phaal wrote:
Monitoring ingress and egress in the switch is wasteful of resources.
It's more than a waste of resources: it's pathologically broken and Cisco decline to fix it, despite the fact that enabling ingress-only or egress-only is fully supported via API in the Broadcom SDKs, and consequently the amount of configuration glue required to fix it in NX-OS is nearly zero. Broadcom chipsets don't support netflow, so sflow is the only game in town if you need data telemetry on broadcom-based ToR boxes. As I said in a previous email on this thread, refusing to support this properly is a harmful and short sighted approach to customers' requirements. Nick
Current thread:
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX Mark Tinka (Mar 01)
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX Nikolay Shopik (Mar 01)
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX Peter Phaal (Mar 01)
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX Mark Tinka (Mar 01)
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX Mark Tinka (Mar 01)
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX Peter Phaal (Mar 02)
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX Nick Hilliard (Mar 02)
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX Peter Phaal (Mar 02)
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX Nick Hilliard (Mar 02)
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX Peter Phaal (Mar 02)
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX Nick Hilliard (Mar 03)
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX Peter Phaal (Mar 03)
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX Nick Hilliard (Mar 03)
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX Peter Phaal (Mar 03)
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX Mark Tinka (Mar 01)
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX Mark Tinka (Mar 02)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX Mark Tinka (Mar 01)
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX Pavel Odintsov (Mar 01)
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX Mark Tinka (Mar 01)
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX Pavel Odintsov (Mar 01)
- Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX Pavel Odintsov (Mar 01)