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. 
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