NetFlow - path from Routers to Collector

Niels Bakker niels=nanog at bakker.net
Wed Sep 2 13:25:25 UTC 2015


* rdobbins at arbor.net (Roland Dobbins) [Wed 02 Sep 2015, 12:12 CEST]:
>On 2 Sep 2015, at 16:48, Mark Tinka wrote:
>>Those VLAN's and VRF's are following the same path as the global 
>>table, just in a different routing table. That is easy, and we do 
>>that already.
>
>Sure.  But it's better than mixing it in with customer traffic.

Why?  Do your customer packets have cooties?


>>Your assertion, before, was that the OoB network is physically 
>>separate from the routers it is supporting. This is less feasible 
>>at scale.
>
>Ideally, it should be - that's what I was trying to get across.  I 
>understand that this isn't free, either from a capex or opex 
>perspective.

Which is exactly the argument that people with experience have been 
making on this mailing list.

OOB is the 3G dialout on a terminal server that it uses once its 
regular outside connection fails.  You don't want flow exports there, 
to give just one counterexample to your earlier assertions.


	-- Niels.



More information about the NANOG mailing list