On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 10:04:43 AM Dobbins, Roland wrote: > Flow telemetry tells us what SNMP telemetry tells us, > plus the above. > > It's useful to have SNMP telemetry from interfaces to > cross-check against flow telemetry, and there are many > other things one can monitor via SNMP, of course. But > overall, flow telemetry is infinitely more useful for > monitoring network traffic than SNMP telemetry.
<it's just coincidence that you work with Arbor> I've never used any other commercial Netflow collector besides Arbor, but yes, Arbor implements things this way, and it makes sense. I constantly have this argument with my Arbor account team, but for me, for the amount of money I pay to get Arbor kit in my backbone, I'll use it more for flow analysis than SNMP data. I do a lot more with SNMP than I'd like the Arbor to handle, and it does go beyond just graphing interfaces. So yes, you still need both, and preferrably, on different systems. The Arbor can do SNMP, but there is something else that will do it better; just like Arbor will do flow analysis better than other flow analyzers (and yes, I do speak with a little inexperience on other flow analyzers that aren't Arbor or Nfsen/Nfdump). </<it's just coincidence that you work with Arbor> 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/
