Re: [j-nsp] Netflow config for MX204

hey, Does one need to reboot the box if you switch to "flex-flow-sizing"? The documentation seems to say so if you're going from the old format to the new one. AFAIR no. You can verify via "show jnh 0 inline-services flow-table-info" from the PFE shell. -- tarko

Re: [j-nsp] Netflow config for MX204

On 8/Apr/20 16:33, Tarko Tikan wrote: > > I don't have any 204s but perhaps use flex-flow-sizing instead manual > table sizes? > > And if you do a lot of flow then you need to raise flow-export-rate > from default as well. Does one need to reboot the box if you switch to "flex-flow-sizing"?

Re: [j-nsp] Netflow config for MX204

hey, I've used IPFIX before, here is an example of how that might be setup, whether it is good or not I'll let others judge and I can fix if there is feedback: I don't have any 204s but perhaps use flex-flow-sizing instead manual

Re: [j-nsp] Netflow config for MX204

    Hi,     IMHO,     Directly on the interface permit to use plugins in Elastiflow (example) to highlight odd traffic behavior (Scans/DDoS) - Alain Hebertaheb...@pubnix.net PubNIX Inc. 50 boul. St-Charles P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W

Re: [j-nsp] Netflow config for MX204

On 8/Apr/20 14:51, Mark Tinka wrote: > > Looks good. The only other thing I would do different is to sample directly on the interface, rather than through a firewall filter: xe-0/1/0 {     unit 0 {     family inet {     sampling {     input;     output;

Re: [j-nsp] Netflow config for MX204

On 8/Apr/20 14:42, John Kristoff wrote: > > I've used IPFIX before, here is an example of how that might be setup, > whether it is good or not I'll let others judge and I can fix if there > is feedback: > > Looks good. The only

Re: [j-nsp] Netflow config for MX204

On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 09:26:10 + Liam Farr wrote: > Just wondering is someone here has a working netflow config for a MX204 > they might be able to share. I've used IPFIX before, here is an example of how that might be setup, whether it is good or not I'll let others judge and I can fix if

Re: [j-nsp] [c-nsp] how many IGP routes is too many?

On 5/Apr/20 12:25, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: > Nowadays however, in times of FRR (-well that one has u-loops), but for > instance ti-LFA or classical RSVP-TE Bypass... and BGP PIC "Core", I'd say > the SPF calculation time is becoming less and less relevant. So in > current designs

Re: [j-nsp] [c-nsp] how many IGP routes is too many?

On 5/Apr/20 12:25, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: > Nowadays however, in times of FRR (-well that one has u-loops), but for > instance ti-LFA or classical RSVP-TE Bypass... and BGP PIC "Core", I'd say > the SPF calculation time is becoming less and less relevant. > So in current designs

Re: [j-nsp] Netflow config for MX204

On 8/Apr/20 11:26, Liam Farr wrote: > Hi, > > Just wondering is someone here has a working netflow config for a MX204 > they might be able to share. > > Last time I did netflow on a Juniper router it was a J2320 

[j-nsp] Netflow config for MX204

Hi, Just wondering is someone here has a working netflow config for a MX204 they might be able to share. Last time I did netflow on a Juniper router it was a J2320  -- Kind Regards Liam Farr Maxum Data +64-9-950-5302 ___ juniper-nsp mailing list

Re: [j-nsp] [c-nsp] how many IGP routes is too many?

On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 00:55, Nick Schmalenberger via juniper-nsp wrote: > Yes, according to this very interesting experiment > http://www.blackhole-networks.com/OSPF_overload/ it is mostly > about memory and cpu load :) Interesting, but this is the worst case scenario for ISIS, single router