[c-nsp] Traffic Monitoring Question

[Mark Tinka]

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 10:04:43 AM Dobbins, Roland 
wrote:

> Flow telemetry tells us what SNMP telemetry tells us,
> plus the above.
> 
> It's useful to have SNMP telemetry from interfaces to
> cross-check against flow telemetry, and there are many
> other things one can monitor via SNMP, of course.  But
> overall, flow telemetry is infinitely more useful for
> monitoring network traffic than SNMP telemetry.

<it's just coincidence that you work with Arbor>

I've never used any other commercial Netflow collector 
besides Arbor, but yes, Arbor implements things this way, 
and it makes sense.

I constantly have this argument with my Arbor account team, 
but for me, for the amount of money I pay to get Arbor kit 
in my backbone, I'll use it more for flow analysis than SNMP 
data.

I do a lot more with SNMP than I'd like the Arbor to handle, 
and it does go beyond just graphing interfaces.

So yes, you still need both, and preferrably, on different 
systems. The Arbor can do SNMP, but there is something else 
that will do it better; just like Arbor will do flow 
analysis better than other flow analyzers (and yes, I do 
speak with a little inexperience on other flow analyzers 
that aren't Arbor or Nfsen/Nfdump).

</<it's just coincidence that you work with Arbor>

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/20131217/17fc525e/attachment.sig>