[156717] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Real world sflow vs netflow?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Peter Phaal)
Mon Sep 24 14:53:04 2012
In-Reply-To: <OFDF489666.AB67F353-ON85257A83.00649121-85257A83.0064B54E@csc.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 11:52:28 -0700
From: Peter Phaal <peter.phaal@gmail.com>
To: Joe Loiacono <jloiacon@csc.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Joe Loiacono <jloiacon@csc.com> wrote:
> OK, Well I guess I was thinking sFlow was primarily a switch oriented
> technology versus on a layer-3 peering router.
The sFlow technology is a good fit for any device that performs a
packet forwarding function (including routers) and the sFlow.org web
site maintains a list of switches and routers that implement the
technology,
http://sflow.org/products/network.php
However, you are correct that today sFlow is more broadly implemented
in switching platforms than routing platforms, but I expect this will
change as network speeds increase and platforms converge.
