[187936] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Edward Dore)
Mon Feb 29 07:16:34 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Edward Dore <edward.dore@freethought-internet.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <CALgsdbcGFkscqw6r4oh4XEx4dcXUenWkKZsPWGDq9zUVFms_3A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:16:29 +0000
To: Pavel Odintsov <pavel.odintsov@gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
--Apple-Mail=_80D2ED0B-B1F8-4704-99B9-BBDB558764E1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
> On 29 Feb 2016, at 09:59, Pavel Odintsov <pavel.odintsov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> For example, at huge Internet Exchanges you actually haven't any
> netflow enabled devices (just check design architecures from AMX-IX,
> DEC-IX, LINX or even MSK-IX).
LINX use IPFIX (which is derived from NetFlow) for the Juniper LAN.
The Extreme LAN uses sFlow.
Edward Dore
Freethought Internet
--Apple-Mail=_80D2ED0B-B1F8-4704-99B9-BBDB558764E1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJW1DadAAoJEFfvlfdgJz0QML0IAJvMHVvnemDy0pgKCogvbe5W
VQhW9KqTK8Osn7l3eByXEaNnyHAF896/fmCgBvktsicUYKPYCATizD5ngrKDNx7V
spRiky0xBtuPf9r4vzY3CVKXX7vEleUxDQq/jh5KqYc2dLkhfvsH1zjkvaMILuxU
WDim5oaQWVVHgAjw1QsiA6F6fapSDlQf3zQd8WYlyMv9ojqc2jNTYH0hfV9cRP4z
Lcg8iJpdnFBy1IBaXSnpMl6rFxWiEPOMu4vyQ2uWXMlhdUtvBoIBHdYxK+/zxV7l
LiOGXmzb3Myz+D33NemyPrwNi5eaSmsbaV+l/9bw8Gp9YwAwo7d9FODTIndf4G4=
=EeGa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Apple-Mail=_80D2ED0B-B1F8-4704-99B9-BBDB558764E1--
