[c-nsp] 6500 Netflow

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 12:07:45PM -0700, virendra rode // wrote:
> > Don't use "ip route-cache flow" (which is a "early stone age" command, 
> > and can only be set on the main interface, and automatically enables 
> > flow accounting for all sub-interfaces).  
> - ------------------------
> that answers my question but then again we haven't run into any head
> scratching issues including any performance related that has caused us
> to move away from this command.
> 
> then again from my brief discussion w/ my peers I'm told the difference
> in ip flow ingress/egress netflow scalability is night and day.

Both commands (ip route-cache flow and ip flow ingress) are *ingress*
netflow.

Egress netflow is "ip flow egress".

As far as I have been able to determine, there is no practical difference
regarding packet flow / router CPU between "ip flow ingress" (on all
individual subifs) and "ip route-cache flow".

I consider this a historic quirk, and assume that it has been kept the
way it is out of a misguided wish for compatibility.

gert

-- 
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
                                                           //www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany                             gert at greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025                        gert at net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 304 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20080417/c027ccfc/attachment.bin