[IPFIX] comments on draft-scholz-ipfix-rtp-msg-00

Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com> Mon, 26 March 2012 20:29 UTC

Return-Path: <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
X-Original-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30FF621E80E1 for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:29:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.316
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.316 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.032, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id trswPW40wrAW for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:29:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from etmail.acmepacket.com (etmail.acmepacket.com [216.41.24.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 857EB21E800E for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:29:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MAIL2.acmepacket.com (10.0.0.22) by etmail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:29:45 -0400
Received: from MAIL1.acmepacket.com ([169.254.1.170]) by Mail2.acmepacket.com ([169.254.2.166]) with mapi id 14.02.0283.003; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:29:45 -0400
From: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
To: Hendrik Scholz <hs@123.org>
Thread-Topic: comments on draft-scholz-ipfix-rtp-msg-00
Thread-Index: AQHNC48uVrbMCL91AkquL/bmeS14cA==
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 20:29:45 +0000
Message-ID: <7EF1B485-21D1-4D3E-9C55-15C327D771C5@acmepacket.com>
References: <4F702CF4.4040203@123.org>
In-Reply-To: <4F702CF4.4040203@123.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [216.41.24.34]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <0B35C051E1E4DB40BAB39CADDAAA7D0E@acmepacket.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAWE=
Cc: "<ipfix@ietf.org>" <ipfix@ietf.org>
Subject: [IPFIX] comments on draft-scholz-ipfix-rtp-msg-00
X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list <ipfix.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipfix>, <mailto:ipfix-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipfix>
List-Post: <mailto:ipfix@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipfix-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix>, <mailto:ipfix-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 20:29:51 -0000

Howdy,
I read draft-scholz-ipfix-rtp-msg-00 and have some initial comments, mostly at a high level for now instead of per-IE.

1) From a IPFIX IANA allocation perspective, it makes sense to get IANA-assigned IE numbers for things that could be exported from different vendors, instead of using PENs.  Quite a few of the IEs in this draft are fairly vendor-specific, however.  I mean in the sense that few media-monitoring vendors report the same type of information as in this draft.  I think there is some commonality across vendors, but it's a smaller list.  How do you want to handle that?  Do we get in a room and agree on a common list?

2) Some of the IEs in here imply the IPFIX records could be generated per-RTP packet.  I don't think you want to do that.  Some media-monitoring systems handle multiple millions of RTP packets per second. 

3) Some of the IEs imply there's a single SSRC for a flow - are you assuming a flow is by definition the 6-tuple of IP src/dest, port src/dest, transport type, and SSRC?  In other words, if there are two or more SSRCs in the same 5-tuple, would they be separate IPFIX flows? (they're only one "RTP" session from an RTP and SDP perspective)

-hadriel