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

2018-05-01 Thread Vincent Bernat
❦ 1 mai 2018 14:30 GMT, Michael Hare  : > chassis { > afeb { > slot 0 { > inline-services { > flow-table-size { > ipv4-flow-table-size 7; > ipv6-flow-table-size

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

2018-05-01 Thread Michael Hare
;To: juniper-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?

2018-05-01 Thread Alain Hebert
    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...     Thanks for the input.     As for routing we have a pretty good mix of T1/T2 providers and we rarely drop sessions so it is providing a pretty good up

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

2018-04-30 Thread Olivier Benghozi
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 ri