North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Netflow Type 7 (was RE: bw usage?)
Usually you don't want type 7, you want type 5. Let cflowd et al have the full data. Type 7 the router has done aggregation for you. Good for reducing overall data rate to the flow capture system but bad for seeing what's going on in your network. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 12:11 PM Subject: Netflow Type 7 (was RE: bw usage?) > > > Does anyone know of a tool like Cflowd which will capture Netflow Type 7 > stats? The only one I know of is the commercial product from Cisco; any > advice would be greatly appreciated. > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Roland Dobbins <[email protected]> // 818.535.5024 voice > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 8:23 AM > To: David M. Ramsey > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: bw usage? > > > > > > > On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, David M. Ramsey wrote: > > > For now I've cobbled together some crude software to regularly > > read SNMP port byte in/out counters from our switches, stashing > > the deltas in a DB for later reporting/analysis. > > We do about the same thing, but we store absolute byte counts, relative > byte counts from the last measurement, and figure the kb/s; we also store > AdminStatus and OperStatus for SLA purposes. > > > > I'm concerned that the data is misleading, though, in that it will > > include LAN broadcast traffic. Also, customers end up paying > > for other bandwidth that they did not want or induce, like network > > scans, etc. (tough luck?). > > Exactly, tough. If they use the bandwidth, then they should pay for the > bandwidth. > > > > We've considered implementing unique customer VLANS to separate > > customer broadcast domains, but it seems like that'd be a pain, > > would eat up IP addresses, and possibly tax our routers with all of > > the ISL/VLAN stuff? > > We do that; it's unwise to have everyone on the same VLAN, as some others > have demonstrated. > >
|