[ipfix] IPFIX protocol evaluation: candidate protocols

Nevil Brownlee <n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz> Tue, 27 August 2002 16:36 UTC

Message-ID: <1030465415.3d6ba7877fe79@hotlava.auckland.ac.nz>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 04:23:35 +1200
From: Nevil Brownlee <n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz>
To: ipfix@net.doit.wisc.edu
Subject: [ipfix] IPFIX protocol evaluation: candidate protocols
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 4.0-cvs
Precedence: bulk
Sender: majordomo listserver <majordomo@mil.doit.wisc.edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hello all:

So far we have advocates for five candidate protocols.  They are
shown below as:

Protocol        Advocate         Date announced
                     documents describing the protocol
..........................................................

CRANE           Kevin Zhang      18 Jul  
                     draft-kzhang-crane-protocol-04.txt

DIAMETER        Sebastian Zander  7 Aug 
                     draft-ietf-aaa-diameter-12.txt

LFAP v5.0       Paul Calato      30 Jul
                     draft-riverstone-lfap-01.txt, and
                     draft-riverstone-lfap-data-01.txt

NetFlow v9      Benoit Claise    18 Jul
                     draft-bclaise-netflow-9-00.txt

Streaming IPDR  Jeff Meyer        9 Aug 
                      http://www.ipdr.org/documents/ipfix
                      (submitted to internet-drafts, 20 Aug as
                      draft-meyer-ipdr-streaming-00.txt)

Closing date for declaring advocates is 2 Sep 02, i.e. this
coming Monday.  After that no more protocols will be considered
in the IPFIX evaluation.

The IPFIX Requirements draft has only one issue for which we still
need consensus, i.e. the reporting of in and out interfaces.  
I'd really like to get the requirements draft through last call;
since this topic turns out to be so intertwined with implementation 
issues, we sidestep it for now, and simply leave the requirement vague. 
In other words, I suggest we just say "SHOULD report output and input
interfaces," and leave it to the protocol advocates to say how their
respective protocols handle such reporting.

Cheers, Nevil

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Nevil Brownlee                   Director, Technology Development
   Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x8941      ITSS, The University of Auckland
   FAX: +64 9 373 7021      Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/

--
Help        mailto:majordomo@net.doit.wisc.edu and say "help" in message body
Unsubscribe mailto:majordomo@net.doit.wisc.edu and say
"unsubscribe ipfix" in message body
Archive     http://ipfix.doit.wisc.edu/archive/

[ipfix] IPFIX protocol evaluation: candidate prot… Nevil Brownlee
Re: [ipfix] IPFIX protocol evaluation: candidate … calato
Re: [ipfix] IPFIX protocol evaluation: candidate … Juergen Quittek