As much as I hate replying to my own posts I just had to bring it up for my own knowledge.
IIRC enabling ip route-cache flow on a subinterface makes it global for the entire interface, is that right/still the case? in which case I think is the reason I preferred using ip accounting when looking for a quick view of an offender on a router. Ben On 18/03/2008, at 8:22 PM, Ben Steele wrote: > > On 18/03/2008, at 8:08 PM, Gert Doering wrote: >> >> Actually netflow is much *less* resource-hungry than "ip accounting". >> > > I was referring to the overall resources ie the huge amount of disk > space often needed, the servers to collect it etc.. as for the actual > routers resources I'll take your word for it as I can't see anyone > using ip accounting for anything on a large scale anyway, it's hardly > descriptive but I do find it handy in those times when you are on the > spot and looking for a culprit who is chewing bandwidth, I guess it > makes more sense to use ip route-cache flow and the output of a sh ip > cache flow in that case if netflow truly is that much better on the > routers resources, oh well learn something new every day :) > > Cheers > > Ben > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
