nanog mailing list archives
Re: Real world sflow vs netflow?
From: Peter Phaal <peter.phaal () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 11:52:28 -0700
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Joe Loiacono <jloiacon () csc com> wrote:
OK, Well I guess I was thinking sFlow was primarily a switch oriented technology versus on a layer-3 peering router.
The sFlow technology is a good fit for any device that performs a packet forwarding function (including routers) and the sFlow.org web site maintains a list of switches and routers that implement the technology, http://sflow.org/products/network.php However, you are correct that today sFlow is more broadly implemented in switching platforms than routing platforms, but I expect this will change as network speeds increase and platforms converge.
Current thread:
- Re: Real world sflow vs netflow?, (continued)
- Re: Real world sflow vs netflow? Dobbins, Roland (Sep 22)
- Re: Real world sflow vs netflow? Peter Phaal (Sep 22)
- Re: Real world sflow vs netflow? Danny McPherson (Sep 23)
- Re: Real world sflow vs netflow? Dobbins, Roland (Sep 23)
- Re: Real world sflow vs netflow? Peter Phaal (Sep 23)
- Re: Real world sflow vs netflow? Dobbins, Roland (Sep 23)
- Re: Real world sflow vs netflow? Joe Loiacono (Sep 24)
- Re: Real world sflow vs netflow? Jeroen Massar (Sep 24)
- Re: Real world sflow vs netflow? Peter Phaal (Sep 24)
- Re: Real world sflow vs netflow? Joe Loiacono (Sep 24)
- Re: Real world sflow vs netflow? Peter Phaal (Sep 24)
- Re: Real world sflow vs netflow? Richard A Steenbergen (Sep 24)