Phil, I agree wholeheartedly. However, due to the nature of what we’re trying to capture, optical taps prove to be cost prohibitive. In our scenario, we would require roughly 1600 taps and another 1600 “TapAgg” ports to collect them.
Using SPANs we would require only 155 ports. One for each campus building aggregation device. Thanks /Ryan Ryan Harden Research and Advanced Networking Architect University of Chicago - ASN160 P: 773.834.5441 > On Aug 5, 2015, at 9:58 AM, Phil Mayers <p.may...@imperial.ac.uk> wrote: > > On 05/08/15 15:44, Ryan Harden wrote: >> All, >> >> We’re looking at moving away from generating NetFlow directly on our >> networking devices to using SPAN ports to something like Arista’s > > I'd strongly advise you reconsider using SPAN ports for this, and look > towards passive fibre/copper taps. In my experience, SPAN ports are > problematic for a wide variety of reasons on a wide variety of > platforms, particularly for long-term use. > > We moved off SPAN ports onto taps for our long-term monitoring needs > some time ago, and I am very glad we did. > > We still use SPAN for short-term troubleshooting of course. > > Cheers, > Phil > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Nfdump-discuss mailing list > Nfdump-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfdump-discuss ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Nfdump-discuss mailing list Nfdump-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfdump-discuss
