Re: [IPFIX] draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech-07

"Christian Henke" <c.henke@tu-berlin.de> Thu, 28 July 2011 11:51 UTC

Return-Path: <c.henke@tu-berlin.de>
X-Original-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A7C121F8C62 for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 04:51:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tZdxbXnMBmNt for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 04:51:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tu-berlin.de (mail.tu-berlin.de [130.149.7.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A43921F8C63 for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 04:51:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-tubIT-Incoming-IP: 195.37.78.250
Received: from fokus8250.fokus.fraunhofer.de ([195.37.78.250] helo=chhPC) by mail.tu-berlin.de (exim-4.75/mailfrontend-4) with esmtpa for <ipfix@ietf.org> id 1QmP7d-0003ak-A5; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 13:51:25 +0200
From: "Christian Henke" <c.henke@tu-berlin.de>
To: <ipfix@ietf.org>
References: <4E30FB49.8030308@cisco.com> <4E312BEB.7080303@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E312BEB.7080303@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 13:51:16 +0200
Message-ID: <000701cc4d1c$a8535b80$f8fa1280$@henke@tu-berlin.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcxNCNZ16K32D5dWSOC6R9NzLgXwxAAE6W+A
Content-Language: de
X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2011.7.28.113314
X-PMX-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIII, Probability=0%, Report=''
Subject: Re: [IPFIX] draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech-07
X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list <ipfix.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 11:51:27 -0000

Hello,

Okay our original idea by introducing these TBDs was: 
The difference between the proposed IEs and the IEs #1-#3 is that we only
look at the packets and flows that arrive at the flow selection process. So
when there is a prior selection process (e.g. packet selection) we get less
packets and flows at the Flow Selection Process. Imagine that you want to
measure all the packets TotalCount before Packet Selection, before Flow
Selection (TBD3) and After Flow Selection (TBD4). In order to differentiate
between these Counters we introduced these TBDs.
The TBD are Total and Not DeltaCounters. They are only reset after the
measurement interval but not each after each export.

Following Benoits explanation it makes sense and keeps the IE list short to
use the original IEs and to send a flow record containing the selection
Algorithm and the corresponding counter IEs so the semantics is clear. So
the proposed IEs would be needless. 

Since there is no FlowSelectionAlgorithm IE specified yet, I would then
propose another IE similar to 304 selectorAlgorithm which specifies the
Algorithm used for FlowSelection.  
 
Regards,
Christian



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipfix-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von
Paul Aitken
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. Juli 2011 11:29
An: Benoit Claise
Cc: ipfix@ietf.org
Betreff: Re: [IPFIX] draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech-07

Benoit, All,

If fsFlowRecordTotalCountis equivalent to field #3, isn't 
fsPacketTotalCount equivalent to #2 and fsOctetTotalCount equivalent to #1 ?

Also, there is an issue with section 7 of this draft: it doesn't 
describe the semantics for any of the new IEs.
The word "Total" in the names seems to describe their function and not 
the semantic.
It's especially important to know whether these are absolute or delta 
counts.

P.

On 28/07/11 07:01, Benoit Claise wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Today, during the WG meeting, I had the action item to double-check 
> the IE id.
> Basically, no problem with Write-up on that front.
>
> From that list, the TBD1 should be assigned the value 3, as specified 
> in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yourtchenko-cisco-ies-01#section-3.1
>
>                    +------+---------------------------+
>                    | ID   | Name                      |
>                    +------+---------------------------+
>                    | TBD1 | fsFlowRecordTotalCount    |
>                    +------+---------------------------+
>                    | TBD2 | fsFlowRecordSelectedCount |
>                    +------+---------------------------+
>                    | TBD3 | fsPacketTotalCount        |
>                    +------+---------------------------+
>                    | TBD4 | fsPacketSelectedCount     |
>                    +------+---------------------------+
>                    | TBD5 | fsOctetTotalCount         |
>                    +------+---------------------------+
>                    | TBD6 | fsOctetSelectedCount      |
>                    +------+---------------------------+
>
> Not sure what the process is.
>     - directly replace TBD1 by 3 in the draft
>     - warn the IPFIX IANA expert, i.e. Nevil, that 3 should be assigned
>     - something else?
>
> Regards, Benoit.
> _______________________________________________
> IPFIX mailing list
> IPFIX@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix

_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
IPFIX@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix