Hi Paolo,
Is there potential risk, such as packet lost to implement a daemon (or modify
pmacct) listen to both Netflow and sflow and split them? Libcap is known of
packet drop when CPU low (I might be wrong for that community keep improving).
Sent from my ASUS
原始郵件
寄件者：Paolo
Am 27.02.2016 um 13:06 schrieb itria30...@itri.org.tw:
Is there potential risk, such as packet lost to implement a daemon (or
modify pmacct) listen to both Netflow and sflow and split them? Libcap
is known of packet drop when CPU low (I might be wrong for that
community keep improving).
I think
My coworker, an IT guy in operation team, once proposed to set all router,
including sflow and nflow equipments, to a single port on a single collector.
In the end we setup sfacctd listen on a port and nfacctd on the other. But I
am wondering if it's possible to fulfill previous requirement? T
Am 27.02.2016 um 17:08 schrieb itria30...@itri.org.tw:
> In the end we setup sfacctd listen on a port and nfacctd on the other. But I
> am wondering if it's possible to fulfill previous requirement? This feature
> is useful for ease (a little bit) of router setting.
This would only work if you
I think UPD proxy will work , cause I have ever observed that sfacctd skipped
nflow packet and only record sflow packets if all routers send to the same
collector same port. (but you'll see a lot of 'parsing header...not a sflow
packet' similar errors in log)
A even better way is to implement a
