[c-nsp] Open Source netflow recommendations

[Mark Tinka]

On Friday, May 20, 2011 05:12:44 PM Saku Ytti wrote:

> What features do you mean specifically? As far as I know,
> only difference MIC have is ability to do HQoS. And even
> this I think is just software thing, can't see why the
> chassis ports couldn't do HQoS too.

Lack of H-QoS in the MX80 fixed chassis is one problem, as 
well as SyncE + friends. Can't get into too much detail 
here, but it's all stuff your Juniper SE can tell you :-).

We are researching new peering routers and found out (at the 
time) that hardware-based Netflow isn't supported in the 
MX80. I haven't checked since then, so not sure what the 
plan there is.

Cheers,

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20110523/c6f9a116/attachment.pgp>