> Thanks for pointing out those RFCs.
Sure. There are more I probably missed.
Search rfc-editor or ietf for netflow or ipfix.
> can v5 count ipv6 ? No, what's next netflow version can ? v9? Ok, let's
> implement v9.
Yep, ipv6 is becoming really important, definitely on backbones. nProbe
has ha
grarpamp wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to support the obvious formal emergent standards
track protocol instead of the legacy informational one? Or to perform
both via sysctl or other arguments/defines, with the standard IPFIX
being the default mode? Have you reviewed the nProbe code for other
vari
On 2009-Sep-07 11:54:55 +0400, Dennis Yusupoff wrote:
>By the way, what's about this one:
>---
> The ng_netflow node type does not fill in AS numbers. This is due to the
...
>---
>
>Is any chance to see it in, for example, 8.0?
New feature cutoff for 8.0 was several months ago. Once the cod
By the way, what's about this one:
---
The ng_netflow node type does not fill in AS numbers. This is due to the
lack of necessary information in the kernel routing table. However, this
information can be injected into the kernel from a routing daemon such as
GNU Zebra. This
grarpamp wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to support the obvious formal emergent standards
track protocol instead of the legacy informational one? Or to perform
both via sysctl or other arguments/defines, with the standard IPFIX
being the default mode? Have you reviewed the nProbe code for other
vari
Wouldn't it be better to support the obvious formal emergent standards
track protocol instead of the legacy informational one? Or to perform
both via sysctl or other arguments/defines, with the standard IPFIX
being the default mode? Have you reviewed the nProbe code for other
various ideas? Thanks
