Juarez Paulino wrote:
> Hello friends,
>
> I have a simple question and maybe a stupid one. Anyway, I will do this:
>
> Why do ipfix implementations such as vermont, maji, YAF(silk) just
> export ipfix messages and not netflow v9 messages?
>
> I mean I know that such implementations - for those which implements a
> simple capable collector - can aparently read netflow v9 messages or
> at least show it on stdout. This is also vermont's case. But is there
> any specific reason for not exporting?
>
> Is there some legal restrictions with cisco? Or is just a matter of
> estabilishing and defining only what is written on the most promising
> standard (RFC 5101)??
>
> I know the requirements about netflow v9 (RFC 3954) and IPFIX (RFC
> 5101) and also that IPFIX was an improvement standadization of netflow
> v9. I know also some differences as a 16-bit field on the headers and
> some not compatible information elements's id. But it all seems to be
> easy to implement...
>
> My main concerns is about a great fraction of users/clients whose have
> only paid closed netflow v9 collectors and expects receiving netflow
> v9 messages. I think that it would be great if some of these ipfix
> implementations could also be exporting these messages.
>
> Sorry if this is a irrelevant or repeated discussion, but I would
> apreciate if someone clarify it to me.
>
> Thanks all,
>
>
> --
> Juarez Paulino