Re: [ipfix] IPFIX followup charter

[Juergen Quittek <[e-mail]>]

Benoit,

I agree that IPFIX reliability is an important issue for IPFIX
And I agree as well with others that bi-flow reporting is important.
However, we do not have discussed these issues yet on the mailing
list or in IPFIX (or PSAMP) sessions.

Therefore I would suggest handling these issues similarly to the way
it is done in the RADEXT, DHC, and other WGs.  There, new issues are
handled as individual drafts and included in the charter when they are
mature enough and often already ready for WG last call.  I think we
can proceed in this way with the two mentioned issues.

We can discuss them on the list at each meeting (monitoirng also the
progress that is made). Then we can include them in the charter as soon
as we sense sufficient stability and/or a broad support by the WG
for working on the issues.

Please find further comments inline.

--On 2/13/06 9:56 AM +0100 Benoit Claise wrote:

> Juergen and all,
>
> Thanks for proposing a new charter. I agree that there are a lot of activities and interest around IPFIX, and that a new charter is suitable.
>
> 1. The implementation guidelines draft is a must in this new charter. Note that I gave a long list of issues regarding this draft, and that I don't think its status is close to completion yet.
> Regarding the per packet draft, I think the right choice to do is to make this concept generic, as discussed already. As a consequence, I would see its content as a new section in the implementation guideline draft, called something such as
> "implementation choice for the reduction of export". Anyway, I really consider the concepts behind the per-packet info as implementation guideline!
> If we combine those two drafts, we can kill one bird with half a stone :) (private joke)

I see your point.  However, the redundancy reduction might prove to have sufficient
substance for covering it in a separate document.  Also, the reduction of redundancy
is on a higher level than most of the guidelines to be covered by the other document.
So there are good reasons for both alternatives.

Are there further opinions?

Thanks,

    Juergen

> 2. The flow aggregation is interesting. I must admit that I haven't spent a great of deal of time reviewing it though.
>
> 3. If we take the initial idea to have 3 work items in the WG charter, I'm wondering which one to take next. I tend to think that only looking at the current maturity of the drafts might not be appropriate, as opposed to ask ourselves the question: do
> we solve the right issue in this new charter?
> Next to the IPFIX transport issue, the second highest amount of emails generated on the list concerned "IPFIX for billing"
> I sketched a few initial ideas in draft-bclaise-ipfix-reliability-00.txt. I agree so that we're missing some meat at this point, but a second draft version will be posted before Dallas. So my vote would go for this work: not because I'm the author, but
> because this is an important item to solve.
>
> Note: I'm personally not convinced by the bi-flow draft. I browsed through the bi-flow draft, and had some non-trivial concerns.
>
> Regards, Benoit.
>
> 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:[e-mail] and say "help" in message body
> Unsubscribe mailto:[e-mail] and say
> "unsubscribe ipfix" in message body
> Archive     http://ipfix.doit.wisc.edu/archive/
>
>



--
Help        mailto:[e-mail] and say "help" in message body
Unsubscribe mailto:[e-mail] and say
"unsubscribe ipfix" in message body
Archive     http://ipfix.doit.wisc.edu/archive/