Thanks everyone for all the information on this. Sorry it took so long to reply back. Got pulled away for a few days.
All real good information. We are running 12410XRs. So far I have not seen any issue with getting netflow data from them. I'm glad we are using them and not the Junipers. Too many hurdles (cards and licenses) to deal with it sounds like. Anyway, thanks again. Everyone is always very helpful here. Very thankful. -Lee On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Mark Tinka <[email protected]>wrote: > 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. > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
