Hi, On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 12:07:45PM -0700, virendra rode // wrote: > > Don't use "ip route-cache flow" (which is a "early stone age" command, > > and can only be set on the main interface, and automatically enables > > flow accounting for all sub-interfaces). > - ------------------------ > that answers my question but then again we haven't run into any head > scratching issues including any performance related that has caused us > to move away from this command. > > then again from my brief discussion w/ my peers I'm told the difference > in ip flow ingress/egress netflow scalability is night and day.
Both commands (ip route-cache flow and ip flow ingress) are *ingress*
netflow.
Egress netflow is "ip flow egress".
As far as I have been able to determine, there is no practical difference
regarding packet flow / router CPU between "ip flow ingress" (on all
individual subifs) and "ip route-cache flow".
I consider this a historic quirk, and assume that it has been kept the
way it is out of a misguided wish for compatibility.
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany [EMAIL PROTECTED]
fax: +49-89-35655025 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgp7DY0Ffm4G8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
