RE: [ipfix] STCP as a default transport not

["MEYER,JEFFREY D (HP-Cupertino,ex1)" <[e-mail]>]

Benoit,

  SCTP-PR does not make me happy, nor do the previous decisions
around reliability as it regards to billing.

  Dropping packets under congestion is already done by UDP, and
UDP is ubiquitous in all OS's.

  Is there some challenge in defining IPFIX over TCP?  It seems
to me that this is the easier case, there are less things to map
to vs. SCTP-PR.  Is explicitly NOT defining a mapping to TCP 
your proposal, i.e. force the use of SCTP-PR?

  As with the experience of Diameter, specifying both transports
will enable a migration to SCTP-PR for everyone if it actually
proves to have the values espoused and it is readily available.
In the interim having a TCP mapping (and UDP) would address the
requirements which I've encountered (billing issues aside).

  As Peter pointed out the resource constraints on the exporter
imposed by TCP can be mitigated in the implementation.

Regards,

  Jeff Meyer

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benoit Claise [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 9:15 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 'Reinaldo Penno';
> 'MEYER,JEFFREY D (HP-Cupertino,ex1)'; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [ipfix] STCP as a default transport not
> 
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> There are advantages regarding the use of SCTP versus TCP (discussed 
> already on the list) but I think that the biggest advantage 
> of SCTP is 
> actually the extension SCTP-PR. And I'm surprised to see no 
> reactions on 
> the email below.
> Yes, I know that the SCTP-PR is not a standard yet but I 
> think that we 
> should just take the right protocol instead of just using what exists 
> because it exists!
> 
> I remember the heated discussions maybe one year ago about 
> using IPFIX 
> for billing, about high availability, etc...
> And one of the solution that could make everybody happy is: SCTP-PR.
> We know that we do have some memory issues with TCP on the 
> high-end routers.
> But, for the smaller exporter OR if you can afford/if it's 
> possible to 
> pack the exporter with the appropriate amount of  memory, 
> SCTP-PR would 
> work perfectly well!
> Now, in the majority of cases (no billing, no enough memory/too many 
> flow records, etc...) SCTP-PR would drop the flow records 
> excess if any, 
> which I think is the right thing to do.
> 
> Regards, Benoit.
> 
> 
> >
> > I think that the interest is in using PR-SCTP as described in
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg-prsctp-01.txt
> >
> > rather than RFC 2960 SCTP.
> >
> > This claims the following benefits:
> >
> >
> > 1.3 Benefits of PR-SCTP
> >
> >    Hereafter, we use the notation "PR-SCTP" to refer to the SCTP
> >    protocol extended as defined in this document.
> >
> >    The following are some of the advantages for integrating 
> partially
> >    reliable data service into SCTP, i.e., benefits of PR-SCTP:
> >
> >    1.  Some application layer protocols may benefit from 
> being able to
> >        use a single SCTP association to carry both reliable 
> content, --
> >        such as text pages, billing and accounting information, setup
> >        signaling -- and unreliable content, e.g. state that 
> is highly
> >        sensitive to timeliness, where generating a new 
> packet is more
> >        advantageous than transmitting an old one [1].
> >
> >    2.  Partially reliable data traffic carried by PR-SCTP 
> will enjoy the
> >        same communication failure detection and protection 
> capabilities
> >        as the normal reliable SCTP data traffic does. This 
> includes the
> >        ability to: - quickly detect a failed destination address; -
> >        fail-over to an alternate destination address, and; 
> - be notified
> >        if the data receiver becomes unreachable.
> >
> >    3.  In addition to providing unordered unreliable data 
> transfer as
> >        UDP does, PR-SCTP can provide ordered unreliable 
> data transfer
> >        service.
> >
> >    4.  PR-SCTP employs the same congestion control and congestion
> >        avoidance for all data traffic, whether reliable or partially
> >        reliable  - this is very desirable since SCTP enforces
> >        TCP-friendliness (unlike UDP.)
> >
> >    5.  Because of the chunk bundling function of SCTP, reliable and
> >        unreliable messages can be multiplexed over a single PR-SCTP
> >        association.  Therefore, the number of IP datagrams 
> (and hence
> >        the network overhead) can be reduced versus having 
> to send these
> >        different types of data using separate protocols.  
> Additionally,
> >        this multiplexing allows for port savings versus 
> using different
> >        ports for reliable and unreliable connections.
> >
> > ----------
> >
> > PR-SCTP has the option of being able to configure the 
> exporter to work 
> > on a
> > best effort data export basis, rather than being 
> constrained to work on a
> > reliable basis.
> >
> > We should spend some time thinking about the behaviour we 
> want in the
> > exporter when the network is congested, perhaps due to an 
> attack. PR-SCTP
> > gives us the option of running a best effort data 
> collection to gleen 
> > what
> > is going on, when a TCP based exporter would otherwise 
> collapse due to
> > backlog on the exporter.
> >
> > Stewart
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -- 
> > 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/