[c-nsp] FNF vs "old" netflow

[CiscoNSP List]

Thanks for the reply Roland - Our main issue is that we have a legacy billing platform, that utilises netflow data (So we can bill customers for consumption).....we are obviously moving away from this, as it simply does not scale, and is excruciatingly difficult to administer/maintain.

Not having to apply netflow on "every" interface would help our provisioning guys....they occasionally forget this(Yes, this is an internal system/procedural issue...but its what we've got to work with currently), cust has no outbound usage, have to enable it, but we cant retrospectively "capture" the netflow data....so we lose billing data for the time netflow hadnt been enabled on a given Int.

Was hoping we could scale back "where" we enable netflow, just to simplify things.
 
Ultimately, we want to move completely away from netflow for billing, and bill on fixed rate pipe and 95%....but huge job, lots of legacy customers on old netflow plans, so we must continue to support this until we can completely move away from it....i.e it will take quite a bit of time :)

________________________________________
From: cisco-nsp <cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net> on behalf of Roland Dobbins <rdobbins at arbor.net>
Sent: Sunday, 22 May 2016 6:00 AM
To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] FNF vs "old" netflow

On 21 May 2016, at 20:42, CiscoNSP List wrote:

> If this is true, could we potentially "limit" the number of Interfaces
> we enable FNF on?

No, this is still not a good idea. You could do egress with classic v9,
but it wasn't a good idea then, either.

What's the objection to simply enabling ingress on the relevant
interfaces?

-----------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <rdobbins at arbor.net>
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/