Re: [IPFIX] IPFIX export: SNMP versus physical Interface

[Juergen Quittek <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

[Writing as technical contrionbutor] I agree.

In the definition of IEs #10 and #14 we refer to RFC2863 and state that
the IE reports the ifIndex value for that interface. This still appears to
be a very good choice and I don't think we should change this. It might be
helpful using IEs #252 and #253 when reporting the physical interface is
needed where a logical one reported by #10 or #14 is located.

    Juergen


On 26.07.11 11:02, "Juergen Schoenwaelder"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 10:54:52AM -0400, Andrew Feren wrote:
>
>> From a collection and reporting perspective the important difference for
>> me in these two sets of definitions isn't physical vs maybe not
>> physical, but that "The value matches the value of managed object
>> 'ifIndex' as defined in RFC 2863 ..." and everything that implies for
>> elements 10/14.
>> 
>> So I agree with Paul's approach.  There are situations where either
>> 10/14 or 252/253 could be used, but if RFC 2863 applies to your
>> interface use 10/14.
>> 
>> Maybe rather than replacing "IP interface" with "logical or virtual
>> interface" it could just be "interface" or "network interface".
>> 
>> On a related not I'm not sure the references for 252/253 need to refer
>> readers to "[RFC2863] for the definition of the ifIndex object."
>
>RFC2863 always applies to an ifIndex object. I fail to see the
>problem. I find the definitions of these elements rather clear as they
>are written.
>
>/js
>
>-- 
>Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
>Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
>Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>_______________________________________________
>IPFIX mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix