[183446] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NetFlow - path from Routers to Collector
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Niels Bakker)
Wed Sep 2 09:25:29 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:25:25 +0200
From: Niels Bakker <niels=nanog@bakker.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <041109F7-87A9-4290-BA5D-36D50FC3FD93@arbor.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
* rdobbins@arbor.net (Roland Dobbins) [Wed 02 Sep 2015, 12:12 CEST]:
>On 2 Sep 2015, at 16:48, Mark Tinka wrote:
>>Those VLAN's and VRF's are following the same path as the global
>>table, just in a different routing table. That is easy, and we do
>>that already.
>
>Sure. But it's better than mixing it in with customer traffic.
Why? Do your customer packets have cooties?
>>Your assertion, before, was that the OoB network is physically
>>separate from the routers it is supporting. This is less feasible
>>at scale.
>
>Ideally, it should be - that's what I was trying to get across. I
>understand that this isn't free, either from a capex or opex
>perspective.
Which is exactly the argument that people with experience have been
making on this mailing list.
OOB is the 3G dialout on a terminal server that it uses once its
regular outside connection fails. You don't want flow exports there,
to give just one counterexample to your earlier assertions.
-- Niels.
