Hello Paolo, On May 5, 2013, at 4:38 PM, Paolo Lucente wrote:
> Hi Osama, > > Very good to hear from you. About the UDP ports: field types #180 and > #181 are supported but the fact the template contains both these two > and their traditional counterparts, field types #7 and #11, kills the > heuristics currently in place to decide which one to pick. What is the > reason behind putting all together in a single template? If it makes > sense to you to remove such redundancy and have pmacct working, good; > otherwise please send me privately a brief capture so to improve the > current heuristics. You are right. This was a configuration mistake. > > About the MPLS label fields: these are not supported (well, there is > an indirect way to aggregate on them via pre-tagging, but i will not > propose it to you as a viable solution). I more wonder what is the > use-case behind your interest into them - it would be great if you > can elaborate on it. What we are trying to do is to gain insights about traffic from the PE router towards our core network by applying NetFlow on the aggregate interface towards the core. Ideally, we want to use the MPLS tags to be able to identify and aggregate flow statistics coming from the access side. Then using some external helpers, the MPLS tags can be given meanings rather than just numbers. The other alternative would be to apply NetFlow on all the interfaces from the access side, which is really a nightmare on all levels. _______________________________________________ pmacct-discussion mailing list http://www.pmacct.net/#mailinglists
