Re: [j-nsp] MX104 and NetFlow - Any horror story to share?

❦ 1 mai 2018 14:30 GMT, Michael Hare  : > chassis { > afeb { > slot 0 { > inline-services { > flow-table-size { > ipv4-flow-table-size 7; >

Re: [j-nsp] MX104 and NetFlow - Any horror story to share?

er-nsp@puck.nether.net >>Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX104 and NetFlow - Any horror story to share? >> >>     Yeah I had the feeling I would break those MX's. >> >>     At this point it is worth it to rebuilt our vMX lab to test the >>IPFIX variant... >> >>

Re: [j-nsp] MX104 and NetFlow - Any horror story to share?

Hi Alain, While you seem to already be kind of suicidal (5 full tables peers on an MX104), on an MX you must not use netflow v9 (CPU based) but use inline IPFIX (Trio / PFE based). I suppose that Netflow-v9 on an MX104 could be quickly an interesting horror story with real traffic due to its

[j-nsp] MX104 and NetFlow - Any horror story to share?

    Hi, Anyone has any horror stories with something similar to what we're about to do?     We're planning to turn up the following Netflow config (see below) on our MX104s (while we wait for our new MX960 =D), it worked well with everything else (SRX mostly), the "*s**et chassis"* are