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.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
