RE: [ipfix] IPFIX followup charter
"Tanja Zseby" <Tanja.Zseby@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Thu, 02 February 2006 10:48 UTC
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F4c16-0003DS-BK for ipfix-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2006 05:48:45 -0500
Received: from mil.doit.wisc.edu (mil.doit.wisc.edu [128.104.31.31]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA20328 for <ipfix-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Feb 2006 05:47:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordomo by mil.doit.wisc.edu with local (Exim 3.13 #1) id 1F4bgC-0004A9-00 for ipfix-list@mil.doit.wisc.edu; Thu, 02 Feb 2006 04:27:08 -0600
Received: from mailhub.fokus.fraunhofer.de ([193.174.154.14]) by mil.doit.wisc.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 1F4bgB-0004A3-00 for ipfix@net.doit.wisc.edu; Thu, 02 Feb 2006 04:27:07 -0600
Received: from EXCHSRV.fokus.fraunhofer.de (einstein [10.147.9.230]) by mailhub.fokus.fraunhofer.de (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with SMTP id k12AR5K21647; Thu, 2 Feb 2006 11:27:05 +0100 (MET)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [ipfix] IPFIX followup charter
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 11:27:15 +0100
Message-ID: <804B13F8F3D94A4AB18B9B01ACB68FA101D312@EXCHSRV.fokus.fraunhofer.de>
Thread-Topic: [ipfix] IPFIX followup charter
Thread-Index: AcYmt9iUQWdDA4pEQ/aQSYYqUZgnAQBJ6pvw
From: Tanja Zseby <Tanja.Zseby@fokus.fraunhofer.de>
To: Juergen Quittek <quittek@netlab.nec.de>, ipfix@net.doit.wisc.edu
Precedence: bulk
Sender: majordomo listserver <majordomo@mil.doit.wisc.edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Jürgen and all, I agree that due to the high amount of drafts we need to decide on the most important ones for the first round. Nevertheless, I think we should consider to include the bi-flow draft already now in the new charter. The idea for such a draft originated at the last FloCon workshop where a lot of people had doubts about IPFIX because it currently lacks information on how to do bi-flow matching/reporting. Many of the participants have written their own programs in the past to allow bi-flow analysis from NetFlow data. So as a result of discussions during the workshop, Brian and Elisa decided to work on such a draft. I agree that there is not yet very much content in the current version of the draft but since this request came from a larger community I consider it as important. Brian, Elisa maybe you can comment on this? Do you share my viewpoint? How would you prioritize your work in IPFIX (since you are also co-authors in other drafts)? Best regards, Tanja -----Original Message----- From: majordomo listserver [mailto:majordomo@mil.doit.wisc.edu] On Behalf Of Juergen Quittek Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 11:42 PM To: ipfix@net.doit.wisc.edu Subject: [ipfix] IPFIX followup charter Dear all, As you know, the IPFIX working group has completed its charter by submitting all planned documents (with a delay of several years) to the IESG for publication as RFC. Also the PSAMP WG will reach this status soon. Building on the results of these WGs, there are a lot of related ongoing activities that are producing Internet drafts related to IPFIX. Several of them have already been presented at recent IPFIX and PSAMP sessions. But working on them is not covered by the IPFIX or PSAMP charter. If we want to continue this IPFIX-related work, we need a new charter that gives it a home at the IETF. The text below lists and discusses related work and suggests a charter for a follow-up WG. It is the output of several discussions with Tanja, Benoit, and Nevil. The proposed charter is very short-lived and includes only the three most mature work items out of a longer list of candidates. The basic idea is completing this charter within less than a year and then re-chartering to cover further work items that have progressed until then. This lean work model with short-lived charters allows the group to focus on a limited number of issues and is preferable to long-lived WGs working on many issues in parallel. (It is highly recommended by the IESG.) Please have a look at it and state whether or not you think it makes sense to have an IPFIX follow-up WG. Also please read the proposed charter carefully and express your objections, concerns, comments, requests for modifications, etc. The plan is to elaborate the new charter proposal on this list and submit an agreed version to our area directors soon. The deadline for requesting BoF sessions at the next IETF meeting in Dallas is February 13. Thanks, Juergen ======================================================= Why do we need to continue the work of IPFIX and PSAMP? ======================================================= IPFIX has completed its charter and PSAMP will do so very soon. Still, there are a lot of ongoing activities in the community of these two WGs: 1. Flow aggregation draft-dressler-ipfix-aggregation-01.txt 2. reducing redundancy in IPFIX and PSAMP reports draft-boschi-export-perpktinfo-00.txt 3. IPFIX implementation guidelines draft-boschi-ipfix-implementation-guidelines-00.txt 4. Path-coupled meter configuration draft-fessi-nsis-m-nslp-framework-02.txt draft-dressler-nsis-metering-nslp-03.txt (currently under discussion in the NSIS WG, but not covered by the NSIS charter. It is a candidate work item for NSIS re-chartering, but the NSIS WG asks if it would not be better covered by IPFIX) 5. IPFIX reliability draft-bclaise-ipfix-reliability-00.txt 6. Reporting bi-directional flows with IPFIX draft-boschi-ipfix-biflow-01.txt 7. a format for storing IPFIX records draft-trammell-ipfix-file-00.txt 8. IPFIX MIB module no I-D yet, but two teams working on it independently. 9. Common IPFIX templates draft-stephan-isp-templates-01.txt 10. Reliable server pooling for IPFIX draft-coene-rserpool-applic-ipfix-01.txt 11. Flow sampling draft-molina-flow-selection-00.txt (expired) Did I miss something? 1.-4. and 9. have already been discussed at past IPFIX or PSAMP sessions. This list shows two things. - There is a community interested in IPFIX that is not too small. - This community and is willing to further work on issues IPFIX-related issues in the IETF. This is a very good starting point for a charter discussion. ============================ Which work items are suited? ============================ Not all of the issues listed above are at a stage, where they should be considered as a WG work item, but 1.-4. are quite well developed and 5. and 6. are candidates. Since 4. is a candidate for NSIS re-chartering, I dropped it from the following considerations. Each of 1.-3. has been presented at IPFIX or PSAMP sessions already two times with some discussion on the suggested approach. For all I sense an agreement in the IPFIX WG (at least no objections so far) that these issues are relevant work and potential WG work items (to be confirmed on the list, of course). - The flow aggregation work is rather mature. Actually this draft covers something that is missing in IPFIX: How to tell the collector that the metering probe does not have the standard (Netflow default) configuration, but filters and aggregates certain flows. There are some terminology problems and a set of technical issues to be solved, but there is not problem with the general direction and the chosen approach. Still, thorough reviews are missing as well as a discussion on how to fit it well into the IPFIX architecture. - Reducing redundancy in IPFIX and PSAMP reports is an issue that was received very well by both WGs when past versions of the IDs were presented. It is considered a useful method of applying IPFIX efficiently. Still, the current drafts were considered as to specific. They apply the optimization to packet reports only. At the last PSAMP meeting it was noted that the method should be generalized such that it can be applied to all redundant IPFIX transmissions. This generalization needs to be done, but the way to go is clear and basically agreed on. - The implementation guidelines are considered the most important work item by many WG members (including myself). Many people are currently implementing IPFIX and several recommendations were identified at the first IPFIX interop (next one is scheduled for end of February). The sooner this document is available, the more will help improving ongoing implementations. My problem with this item is that the current individual draft is in a bad shape. Therefore, the milestones for this item are later than for the others. The two weaker candidates for WG items are IPFIX reliability and reporting of bidirectional flows. Both have been requested on the IPFIX mailing list several time in the past years, but we could not agree on making them part of the basic IPFIX standard. But as add-ons, that integrate well with the standard, they can be considered, particularly since I heard about operator requests for both of them. A problem of these issues is that so far they have not been presented at IPFIX or PSAMP sessions and there has not been a discussion yet on the approaches followed by the existing drafts. Therefore, these two are not included in the draft proposal below. ================================= Charter Proposal: Efficient Use of IPFIX (USEIPFIX) ================================= The IPFIX working group has specified the IPFIX protocol for exporting flow records. The PSAMP working group has specified the usage of the IPFIX protocol for exporting packet records. With both specifications available, several implementers have started building applications using the IPFIX protocol. At a first interoperability testing event, several IPFIX protocol implementations were tested. The experiences made at this event were fed back to IPFIX protocol specification, particularly for removing ambiguities. In addition, several lessons were learned about how to implement and use IPFIX correctly and efficiently. The exchange among different implementers further led to new ideas for advanced usage of IPFIX. Many of these ideas are currently documented in individual Internet drafts. The goal of the USEIPFIX working group is producing best current practice and guideline documents concerning implementation, application and usage of the IPFIX protocol. Out of scope are modifications of the core IPFIX and PSAMP protocol specifications. In scope is the definition of new IPFIX and PSAMP information elements within the documents produced by the USEIPFIX WG. Specific Goals of the USEIPFIX WG are: o Developing guidelines for implementers based on experiences gained individually by implementers and jointly at interoperability testing events. The guidelines will give recommendations for integrating IPFIX observation points, measurement processes, and exporting processes into the packet flow at different kinds of IPFIX devices. They will make suggestions for efficient implementation of the IPFIX protocol features and identify parts of the IPFIX specification that have already been misunderstood by several implementers. For some implementation choices that the protocol specification leaves to the implementer, the guidelines will discuss advantages and disadvantages of the different choices. o Developing methods and means for an efficient use of the IPFIX protocol that reduces redundancy in flow reports. The basic idea to be followed is very simple. For multiple flow records that all report the same value in one or more of the contained IPFIX information elements, these values are removed from the flow records and instead reported once for all in a separate record. Such an approach integrates very well with the IPFIX protocol and only needs few means for expressing the relationship between flow records and corresponding separate records. o Develop a method for flow aggregation reducing the amount of measurement data exchanged between IPFIX exporters and IPFIX collectors. Using aggregation techniques, measurement information of multiple similar flows is aggregated into few meta-flow records. Applied aggregation rules need to be communicate. o Investigate further ways of efficiently using the IPFIX protocols including but not limited to - providing reliability for IPFIX transmissions, - reporting bi-directional flows, - path-coupled configuration of IPFIX devices, - reporting the configuration of IPFIX devices, - flow sampling at IPFIX devices, - storing IPFIX flow records and packet records. These issues are not current work items of the USEIPFIX WG but are evaluated as candidates for potential future work items. Milestones: Mar 2006 Initial version of flow aggregation methods Mar 2006 Initial version of reducing redundandy in IPFIX records Mar 2006 IPFIX and PSAMP interoperability testing event (not a real WG milestone?) Apr 2006 Initial version of implementation guidelines Jul 2006 Submit flow aggregation methods to IESG Sep 2006 Submit reducing redundancy in IPFIX records to IESG Sep 2006 Submit implementation guidelines to IESG -- Help mailto:majordomo@net.doit.wisc.edu and say "help" in message body Unsubscribe mailto:majordomo@net.doit.wisc.edu and say "unsubscribe ipfix" in message body Archive http://ipfix.doit.wisc.edu/archive/ -- Help mailto:majordomo@net.doit.wisc.edu and say "help" in message body Unsubscribe mailto:majordomo@net.doit.wisc.edu and say "unsubscribe ipfix" in message body Archive http://ipfix.doit.wisc.edu/archive/
- [ipfix] IPFIX followup charter Juergen Quittek
- RE: [ipfix] IPFIX followup charter Tanja Zseby
- Re: [ipfix] IPFIX followup charter Brian Trammell
- Re: [ipfix] IPFIX followup charter Carter Bullard
- Re: [ipfix] IPFIX followup charter Elisa Boschi
- Re: [ipfix] IPFIX followup charter Falko Dressler
- Re: [ipfix] IPFIX followup charter Juergen Quittek
- Re: [ipfix] IPFIX followup charter Brian Trammell
- Re: [ipfix] IPFIX followup charter Benoit Claise
- Re: [ipfix] IPFIX followup charter Juergen Quittek
- Re: [ipfix] IPFIX followup charter Elisa Boschi