❦ 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
;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...
>
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
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
4 matches
Mail list logo