[nsp] From the baby to the beast

[Stephen J. Wilcox]

ah ok with you now.

so i think i'm back to your original point now, why not just enable netflow on
the 6000's mls ? or are you saying that there is a problem with that?

Steve

On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Darren Smith wrote:

> Hi Stephen
> 
> >>> With the packets from one of the Ethernets on a Transit supplier (I've
> hit well over 100kpps) I maxed out my transit router in terms of cpu \o/
> 
> > yeah but in how many unique flows, or in easier to estimate terms - how
> many distinct users in each expiration interval, somewhat less than 100000
> per minute...
> 
> What I meant by that was, in order to do netflow, i'll need to route my
> transit traffic back via my 7401's, the CPU on the 7401's was dangerously
> high last time due to the high number of packets/second, so regardless of
> netflow accounting, i'll still need something a bit more beefy.
> 
> The suppliers have been trying to flog me everything from Cisco 7600's to
> 12416's to Juniper M160's! ;-)
> 
> Regards
> 
> Darren.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@telecomplete.co.uk>
> To: "Darren Smith" <data@barrysworld.com>
> Cc: <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 3:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [nsp] From the baby to the beast
> 
> 
> > > > dont forget its only one packet for each flow.. i dont know for sure
> but
> > > i'd imagine a single gaming session altho udp is continous and therefore
> > > only one
> > > > flow and if you make your cache timeout a little larger than usual
> (most
> > > ppl use 1min i believe) that will reduce the amount of accounting also.
> > >
> > > Yes it will be, so i'd have to expire active flows in order to maintain
> 
> 
>