Re: [IPFIX] Comments ondraft-kashima-ipfix-data-link-layer-monitoring-01.txt
"Dharani Vilwanathan (dharani)" <dharani@cisco.com> Tue, 09 March 2010 22:39 UTC
Return-Path: <dharani@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 339043A6AC5 for <ipfix@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 14:39:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nhttSsmVukJZ for <ipfix@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 14:39:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 358203A6AB6 for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 14:39:45 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-5.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,610,1262563200"; d="scan'208";a="163179640"
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.223.138]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Mar 2010 22:39:50 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o29MdoUV001963; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 22:39:50 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-222.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.106]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 9 Mar 2010 14:39:49 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:39:28 -0800
Message-ID: <AE36820147909644AD2A7CA014B1FB520A320714@xmb-sjc-222.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B96CA8E.6060700@auckland.ac.nz>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [IPFIX] Comments ondraft-kashima-ipfix-data-link-layer-monitoring-01.txt
Thread-Index: Acq/10l4REGhwuvuRkWDcYXYn3rgngAAfPUw
References: <AE36820147909644AD2A7CA014B1FB520A042922@xmb-sjc-222.amer.cisco.com> <20100218135814.C821.1AB7FA03@nttv6.net><4B945D21.3040804@auckland.ac.nz> <4B957D70.5020305@cisco.com> <AE36820147909644AD2A7CA014B1FB520A3206E4@xmb-sjc-222.amer.cisco.com> <4B96CA8E.6060700@auckland.ac.nz>
From: "Dharani Vilwanathan (dharani)" <dharani@cisco.com>
To: Nevil Brownlee <n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Mar 2010 22:39:49.0997 (UTC) FILETIME=[6D88C9D0:01CABFD9]
Cc: IPFIX Working Group <ipfix@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [IPFIX] Comments ondraft-kashima-ipfix-data-link-layer-monitoring-01.txt
X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list <ipfix.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 22:39:46 -0000
Hi Nevil, Thanks for the quick response and thanks for sharing your thoughts. Regards dharani -----Original Message----- From: Nevil Brownlee [mailto:n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz] Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 2:24 PM To: Dharani Vilwanathan (dharani) Cc: Paul Aitken (paitken); IPFIX Working Group Subject: Re: [IPFIX] Comments ondraft-kashima-ipfix-data-link-layer-monitoring-01.txt Hi Dharani: I agree that being able to report on Layer 2 is important and useful - we just need to work out the best strategy to document/standardise it. Cheers, Nevil Dharani Vilwanathan (dharani) wrote: > Hi Nevil/Paul, > > I too would like to convey that there is a need for obtaining layer 2 > info in IPFIX records along with rest of the IP fields of a flow. > > We would like to make sure this will be of interest to IPFIX working > group and community, because Yaonan, Laxmi and I are working on > various ethernet types and see if we can address missing fields. We > would like to bring this to IPFIX forum once we have the details. > > Thanks > dharani > > -----Original Message----- > From: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipfix-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Paul Aitken (paitken) > Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 2:43 PM > To: Nevil Brownlee > Cc: IPFIX Working Group > Subject: Re: [IPFIX] Comments > ondraft-kashima-ipfix-data-link-layer-monitoring-01.txt > > Nevil, > >> This draft introuces three new IPFIX Information Elements (IEs) that >> would enable IPFIX to be used for monitoring (parts of) in >> data-link-layer parts of packet headers. It concentrates on >> Ethernet, > >> especially as used in providing layer-2 VPN services (IEEE 802.1ad >> and > >> 802.1ah). >> >> Now that I've read it and thought about it, I have three comments: >> >> 1. The IPFIX/PSAMP architecture standardises the collection of >> *IP-related* data, this proposal would extend it to cover data from >> other parts of a packet's headers. That would be a significant >> extension. Is there support for such a generalisation? > > Yes, very much so. We have customer need for this. It would be far > preferable for us to standardise through IPFIX than to go down a > proprietary route. > > Note that there is precedent for this, since the IPFIX info model > already contains some non-IP fields - eg, MPLS, MAC address, VLAN. > > >> 2. It's presented as a simple, minimal extension to IPFIX/PSAMP, >> simply adding three new IEs PSAMP IEs, i.e with numbers above 338. >> Does it provide enough detail? > > Actually, the dataLinkFrameSize and dataLinkFrameSection definitions > are > > simply verbatim copies from the old draft-ietf-psamp-info-09. > > >> Should there be more than just three? >> For example, how about having separate IEs for S-VID, C-VID, B-VID >> and I=SID? What other IEs are needed for PPP and WiMAX? >> >> 3. The description of proposed IE dataLinkFrameType seems rather >> minimal - eventually we'll want to add more data link types. For >> example, the ifType-MIB (www.iana.org/assignments/ianaiftype-mib) >> has a much longer list. Maybe we have to choose here between a > long >> list of types, each with its own set of fields, or a short list of >> very general fields? A short, simple list seems very appealing! > > I would propose an extensible IANA sub-registry. > > Cheers, > P. > -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Nevil Brownlee Computer Science Department | ITS Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x88941 The University of Auckland FAX: +64 9 373 7453 Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand
- [IPFIX] Regarding draft-kashima-ipfix-data-link-l… Dharani Vilwanathan (dharani)
- Re: [IPFIX] Regarding draft-kashima-ipfix-data-li… Shingo KASHIMA
- [IPFIX] Comments on draft-kashima-ipfix-data-link… Nevil Brownlee
- Re: [IPFIX] Comments on draft-kashima-ipfix-data-… Paul Aitken
- Re: [IPFIX] Comments on draft-kashima-ipfix-data-… Shingo KASHIMA
- Re: [IPFIX] Comments ondraft-kashima-ipfix-data-l… Dharani Vilwanathan (dharani)
- Re: [IPFIX] Comments ondraft-kashima-ipfix-data-l… Nevil Brownlee
- Re: [IPFIX] Comments ondraft-kashima-ipfix-data-l… Dharani Vilwanathan (dharani)