Re: Weird Netflow problem...
- From: "Thrill5" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:19:10 -0500
Yes, you don't need them because the flows will be captured by the mls
flows. The "ip route-cache flow" entries will not have all the information
you need and will be duplicates of flows already captured via the mls flows.
"essenz" <john@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:c66cfe13-09d7-4b50-8a40-8aa7146383a8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ok, I read up on the mls stuff, and I have added those configs.
But are you saying I should still remove all the ip route-cache flow
entries from all my interfaces?
This is what my current config looks like now:
mls aging fast time 64
mls aging long 64
mls aging normal 64
mls flow ip full
mls nde sender version 5
mls sampling time-based 64
!
interface FastEthernet7/1
description BGP Uplink
ip address X.X.X.X 255.255.255.252
ip route-cache flow
no ip mroute-cache
!
interface FastEthernet7/2
description Server
ip address X.X.X.X 255.255.255.0
ip route-cache flow
no ip mroute-cache
!
ip flow-export version 5 origin-as
ip flow-export destination X.X.X.X 8787
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Weird Netflow problem...
- From: headsetadapter.com
- Re: Weird Netflow problem...
- References:
- Weird Netflow problem...
- From: essenz
- Re: Weird Netflow problem...
- From: Thrill5
- Re: Weird Netflow problem...
- From: essenz
- Weird Netflow problem...
- Prev by Date: Re: How do I copy the config from one 3560 Cisco Switch to another?
- Next by Date: Re: VTP Pruning
- Previous by thread: Re: Weird Netflow problem...
- Next by thread: Re: Weird Netflow problem...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|