[183192] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tim Durack)
Tue Aug 18 09:45:36 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20150818133817.GH34798@greenie.muc.de>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 09:44:34 -0400
From: Tim Durack <tdurack@gmail.com>
To: Gert Doering <gert@greenie.muc.de>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>,
"cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net" <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Gert Doering <gert@greenie.muc.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 09:32:53AM -0400, Tim Durack wrote:
> > > (It would be cool if Cisco would understand that hardware forwarding
> > > platforms need useful netflow with MAC-addresses in there... ASR9k at
> [..]
> > At the risk of introducing religion, I will mention sFlow...
>
> Yes... and this is helping exactly why...? Given the overwhelming
> support for sFlow in (Cisco-) hardware routers used as peering edge? :-)
I ask Cisco for sFlow support on a regular basis. Cisco typically respond
with some variation of NIH syndrome. Anyway, back to my question :-)
--
Tim:>
