[c-nsp] Netflow / 3560 platform

[David Curran]

Agreed, and not to beat a dead horse, but there are mechanisms to send full
packets to the processor and still circulate packets via the switch path for
forwarding.  My point is that a switch that has a reported 720G throughput
most likely does not have the processor to do netflow on all of that.

That was my point about comparing a switch to a router.    OK, I promise,
I'm done ;)


> From: Adam Armstrong <lists at memetic.org>
> Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 14:04:50 +0100
> To: David Curran <dcurran at nuvox.com>, <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Netflow / 3560 platform
> 
> David Curran wrote:
>> Touche.  I was speaking of the smaller catalyst platforms.  However I'm not
>> sure its fair to real routers to call the Supervisors route processors.
>> That's like calling a Yugo a race car.  Sure, you COULD race it...
>>   
> Look at the specs of the RSP-720. It would be a lot faster at software
> forwarding than all of the devices
>  mentioned earlier. (it'd probably be similar speed to the NPE-G2, I guess)
> 
> The issue is that the switch architecture makes it very hard to
> accurately track and record the information needed for netflow. This
> information is stored in TCAM, which is already scarce enough on those
> platforms!
> 
> adam.



This email and any attachments ("Message") may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information.  If you are not the addressee, or if this Message has been addressed to you in error, you are not authorized to read, copy, or distribute it, and we ask that you please delete it (including all copies) and notify the sender by return email.  Delivery of this Message to any person other than the intended recipient(s) shall not be deemed a waiver of confidentiality and/or a privilege.