[c-nsp] Open Source netflow recommendations

[Mark Tinka]

On Saturday, May 21, 2011 12:09:49 AM Nick Hilliard wrote:

> Difficult to understand why an MS-DPC is required for
> jflow v9.  The additional overhead of netflowv9 is very
> low, and the actual cost of running an MS-DPC can be
> quite high (i.e. extra slot which would otherwise be
> used for a traffic blade).

$$ :-).

Well, both Cisco and Juniper have introduced "additional" 
services over new line cards (or service cards, whatever 
you'd like to call them), but Juniper have been a little 
over-zealous with this since they opened shop.

Think of the Tunnel PIC. Think of NAT.

I do believe that service cards are not all bad as they can 
be useful to offload certain services in order to let them 
scale, but Juniper's pervasive use of these for even simple 
things like Netflow export, NAT or Tunneling (well, until 
the MX-series, of course re: tunneling) is just too much.

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/e2bdebba/attachment.pgp>