Re: [BEHAVE] four data models: SYSLOG, IPFIX, SNMP, RADIUS

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net]
> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 11:04 AM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; behave@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] four data models: SYSLOG, IPFIX, SNMP, RADIUS
> 
> You of course forgot Diameter:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dime-nat-control-17
> 
> Operators deploy different protocols for different purposes.

That was not my question.  

My question was forcing operators to deploy multiple protocols to meet their
purposes.

-d

> The world would be great if everyone could agree to use only one
> protocol, like in the voice over IP world (for example)...
> 
> On Jul 16, 2012, at 8:55 PM, Dan Wing wrote:
> 
> > As an individual, I have been worried about the possibility of
> disparate
> > data models for NATs.  We currently have four ways to report
> information
> > about a NAT or other address-sharing device,
> >
> > SYSLOG, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhou-behave-syslog-nat-
> logging-00
> > IPFIX, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sivakumar-behave-nat-logging-
> 05
> > SNMP, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-perreault-sunset4-cgn-mib
> > RADIUS,
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheng-behave-cgn-cfg-radius-ext-
> 03#section-
> > 4.2
> >
> > My concern is that operators may find it necessary to deploy all four
> > protocols (IPFIX, SYSLOG, SNMP, and RADIUS) to get their needed
> logging and.
> > This seems undesirable.  Imagine, for example, that only one of those
> > protocols supported pseudo-random port assignment but only one other
> > protocol provided alarms for when a subscriber consumed all their
> ports (and
> > thus might open a support case with the operator that "the Internet
> is
> > down").
> >
> > Are my concerns misplaced?
> >
> > -d
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Behave mailing list
> > Behave@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave