I agree. This is an undocumented feature. I am fairly experienced and some would even say knowledgable. I would not have recommended NAT on the box based on my experience with poor NAT response rather than the specific bug. So I don't think this is a valid response to the problem. Cisco should document this 'feature' better.
Mack -----Original Message----- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2011 12:04 PM To: Tony Varriale Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] WARNING: Netflow Data Export & Hardware assisted NAT not supported on 76xx/65xx on the same interface Hi, On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 11:12:44AM -0500, Tony Varriale wrote: > Then hire someone that knows what they are doing. Am I the only one to find that sort of remark a bit nasty? While not sporting any nice certificates, I consider myself to be somewhat experienced with Cisco platforms, and Cisco architecture - and if a prospective customer would have asked me "will NAT and netflow work together?" I would have checked the documentation, would not have found anything about that conflict either, and would have said "no problem there". After all, on other Cisco platforms netflow is used as well to help NAT (netflow feature-acceleration), and of course, the corresponding flow records get exported properly afterwards. gert -- USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! //www.muc.de/~gert/ Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de fax: +49-89-35655025 g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
