IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPFIX] draft-kashima-ipfix-data-link-layer-monitoring

Shingo KASHIMA <kashima@nttv6.net> Tue, 09 November 2010 06:31 UTC

Return-Path: <kashima@nttv6.net>
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 465523A6804 for <ipfix@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 22:31:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 eP46eeVU1HaV for <ipfix@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 22:31:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.nttv6.net (mail.nttv6.net [IPv6:2001:fa8::25]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60F1D3A67EF for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 22:31:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail.nttv6.net (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oA96VR3k039536; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 15:31:33 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from kashima@nttv6.net)
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 14:31:15 +0800
From: Shingo KASHIMA <kashima@nttv6.net>
To: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
In-Reply-To: <DA9BBB04-D03D-439F-8064-B46EA5D97B20@acmepacket.com>
References: <20101109104639.C689.1AB7FA03@nttv6.net> <DA9BBB04-D03D-439F-8064-B46EA5D97B20@acmepacket.com>
Message-Id: <20101109141750.9AA4.1AB7FA03@nttv6.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.50.05 [ja]
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.6 (mail.nttv6.net [IPv6:::1]); Tue, 09 Nov 2010 15:31:35 +0900 (JST)
Cc: IETF IPFIX Working Group <ipfix@ietf.org>, "ipfix-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <ipfix-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [IPFIX] draft-kashima-ipfix-data-link-layer-monitoring
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 Nov 2010 06:31:21 -0000

Hi Hadriel and all,

Thanks for your information.

I undarstood IPFIX IEs have two kins of enumeration values.

- To be defined as independent type
 e.g. mplsTopLabelType
- To be defined in own description
 e.g. flowEndReason, biflowDirection

On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 01:02:53 -0500
Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com> wrote:

> 
> On Nov 8, 2010, at 10:08 PM, Shingo KASHIMA wrote:
> 
> > Then let's see existing IEs.
> > - flowEndReason includes a value list in its description.
> > - biflowDirection includes a value list in its description.
> > Are there IEs which do not include a value list in their description ?
> > 
> > Which is IPFIX IEs registries policy, to be defined in the IE
> > description or in separate registries ?
> > We should follow our policy.
> > Or, dataLinkFrameType is a different kind of IE from existing IEs
> > such as flowEndReason and biflowDirection ?
> 
> I think he means more like mplsTopLabelType, which has an actual registry for its enumeration values. (See http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml#ipfix-mpls-label-type)
> 
> -hadriel

-- 
Shingo KASHIMA <kashima@nttv6.net>
NTT Information Sharing Platform Lab.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email