On Apr 7, 2011, at 1:26 PM, Jonas Björklund wrote:
What device are you recommend instead? A 7600? Which SUP?
7600 has the same issues, as it uses the same hardware.
The Cisco platforms which generate operationally sound NetFlow include
ISR/ISR2, 7200, 10K w/PRE-3/-4, ASR1K, ASR9K, GSR/12000
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Apr 7, 2011, at 8:44 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
I suspect there will be switch processor load issues if you do more than some
form of sampled netflow,
6500 with current hardware doesn't support sampled NetFlow. It supports NDE
export sampling,
TCIS List Acct lista...@tulsaconnect.com wrote:
We have traditionally used mirror ports in a L2 switch attached to a
FreeBSD box with NICs in promisc. mode to do our traffic accounting
(monitoring the traffic to/from the edge and ignoring local traffic).
However, with the new 6509
On 04/07/2011 02:22 AM, TCIS List Acct wrote:
Hi all,
A bit of background...
We are preparing to deploy our first pair of 6509s with a SUP720-3B
Can I ask: are these new? Did Cisco / a partner sell you these recently?
If so, go back and ask them why they didn't advise you to wait for
Are you really sure you want to bill based on Netflow?
I used to look after a network with 7206 as edge routers and implemented
Netflow billing for them.
The concept was great, and you could provide all sorts of interesting data
HOWEVER
After having implemented this, I do not believe that such
On 07/04/2011 02:22, TCIS List Acct wrote:
However, with the new 6509 platform, we are hoping to use NetFlow v9
instead and get rid of the sniffer box.
on a PFC3 based platform (i.e. 6500 / 7600 with sup720 or rsp720), this
will probably work fine up to about 10pps imix traffic. After
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 01:46:58AM +, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
So, while NetFlow is an outstanding choice for your application,
the 6500 platform with current hardware has many NetFlow caveats
which can adversely affect the statistical validity of the exported
telemetry. With the 6500
Hi all,
A bit of background...
We are preparing to deploy our first pair of 6509s with a SUP720-3B supervisors
and WS-X6548-GE-TX line cards (we may also have a few WS-X6748-GE-TX cards as
well). These will be used for core/customer distribution primarily, with a pair
of Juniper M7i routers
On Apr 6, 2011, at 6:22 PM, TCIS List Acct lista...@tulsaconnect.com wrote:
Hi all,
A bit of background...
We are preparing to deploy our first pair of 6509s with a SUP720-3B
supervisors and WS-X6548-GE-TX line cards (we may also have a few
WS-X6748-GE-TX cards as well). These will be
On Wed, 6 Apr 2011, Wil Schultz wrote:
Not netflow, but I use cacti to graph all switchports and aggregate
ports as needed into 95th percentile. Works well and there aren't any
load concerns on the switchside.
That's the easiest way...but the trouble is, cacti can't ignore local
traffic (so
On Apr 7, 2011, at 8:44 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
I suspect there will be switch processor load issues if you do more than some
form of sampled netflow,
6500 with current hardware doesn't support sampled NetFlow. It supports NDE
export sampling, which isn't the same thing, at all.
;
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 6, 2011, at 9:44 PM, Jon Lewis jle...@lewis.org wrote:
On Wed, 6 Apr 2011, Wil Schultz wrote:
Not netflow, but I use cacti to graph all switchports and aggregate ports as
needed into 95th percentile. Works well and there aren't any load concerns
on the
On 4/6/11 22:42 , Keegan Holley wrote:
Is there really any local traffic on an Internet feed? Also is there really any
local traffic that shouldn't be billed?
Local is a matter of perspective... if you assume it to just meant
router-to-customer control traffic, there's probably not much.
13 matches
Mail list logo
