[188012] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: sFlow vs netFlow/IPFIX
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nick Hilliard)
Thu Mar 3 03:13:16 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
X-Envelope-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 22:45:26 +0000
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
To: Peter Phaal <peter.phaal@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAB8g2zxKxF4z9hcmsQLU=AVJKw4LAmMLdG6GP5MFw+zq2hKMAA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Peter Phaal wrote:
> Monitoring ingress and egress in the switch is wasteful of resources.
It's more than a waste of resources: it's pathologically broken and
Cisco decline to fix it, despite the fact that enabling ingress-only or
egress-only is fully supported via API in the Broadcom SDKs, and
consequently the amount of configuration glue required to fix it in
NX-OS is nearly zero.
Broadcom chipsets don't support netflow, so sflow is the only game in
town if you need data telemetry on broadcom-based ToR boxes.
As I said in a previous email on this thread, refusing to support this
properly is a harmful and short sighted approach to customers' requirements.
Nick
