Re: [IPFIX] SIP/RTP extensions to IPFIX: SIPFIX
"Saverio Niccolini" <Saverio.Niccolini@nw.neclab.eu> Mon, 27 July 2009 07:35 UTC
Return-Path: <Saverio.Niccolini@nw.neclab.eu>
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 2134B3A6A8B for <ipfix@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 00:35:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 Xmku04Crfzhf for <ipfix@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 00:35:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp0.neclab.eu (smtp0.neclab.eu [195.37.70.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B17428C1D2 for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 00:34:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp0.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E81A32C0012C8; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:34:23 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (atlas2.office)
Received: from smtp0.neclab.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas2.office [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0r3B183R4sQn; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:34:23 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from VENUS.office (mx1.office [192.168.24.3]) by smtp0.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3F8A2C0012C5; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:34:13 +0200 (CEST)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:34:12 +0200
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg="SHA1"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0044_01CA0E9D.66ABCD30"
Message-ID: <547F018265F92642B577B986577D671CADE137@VENUS.office>
In-Reply-To: <20090727160547.6700.17391CF2@nttv6.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [IPFIX] SIP/RTP extensions to IPFIX: SIPFIX
thread-index: AcoOiskgb0yXHq3LT7mBKhWeghYdawAAQtXw
References: <547F018265F92642B577B986577D671C9E3B8E@VENUS.office> <20090727160547.6700.17391CF2@nttv6.net>
From: Saverio Niccolini <Saverio.Niccolini@nw.neclab.eu>
To: Atsushi Kobayashi <akoba@nttv6.net>
Cc: ipfix@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [IPFIX] SIP/RTP extensions to IPFIX: SIPFIX
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: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 07:35:14 -0000
Dear Kobayashi-san, thanks for the support. Today we will present the draft in the IPFIX session, where we present our motivation of the work. Indeed, we started from VoIP/SIP monitoring but indeed is also for other applications, just needs to be extended a bit. And yes, the idea is to support a wide range of monitoring and operations applications, that is why we came to IPFIX and did not go to RAI area. You can see a preview of the slides here: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/ipfix-2.pdf We can call how you like, SIPFIX was just a cool name to start with :-) Today, Thomas will present our draft where we also analyzed differences with respect to SIP-CLF, I am not sure if this group followed that discussion as well, but there are similarities that needs to be discussed even if the application use case is totally different. Cheers, Saverio ============================================================ Dr. Saverio Niccolini Manager, Real-Time Communications Group NEC Laboratories Europe, Network Research Division Kurfuerstenanlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg Tel. +49 (0)6221 4342-118 Fax: +49 (0)6221 4342-155 e-mail: saverio.niccolini@nw.neclab.eu ============================================================ NEC Europe Limited Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL Registered in England 2832014 > -----Original Message----- > From: Atsushi Kobayashi [mailto:akoba@nttv6.net] > Sent: 27 July 2009 09:21 > To: Saverio Niccolini > Cc: ipfix@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [IPFIX] SIP/RTP extensions to IPFIX: SIPFIX > > > Dear Saverio, and all, > > I support it. > > I have same opinion regarding problem statement section. > Sip/rtp monitoring would be useful for other trouble shooting case. It > would be utilized more, when a end customer asks the quality > degradation, > the terminal configuration, or busy line. And it can be applied to IPTV > monitoring as well. > > I have one question. > > Is the title "SIPFIX" suitable for IETF document? I think generalized > name is better. > > Regards, > Atsushi > > On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:46:06 +0200 > "Saverio Niccolini" <Saverio.Niccolini@nw.neclab.eu> wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > we just submitted the draft about SIP/RTP extensions to IPFIX: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-huici-ipfix-sipfix-00.txt > > > > The current draft (to make it easier to read) presents the > > problem-statement and the standardizing solution all in one > > document. If this draft proceeds we will take care of splitting > > these two items later on. > > > > The first question for the group is: > > is this something you would like to discuss in the context of this > WG? > > > > We know from our experience that currently information about > > SIP and RTP sessions is exported in proprietary ways and that > > would be useful to have L7 information in the IPFIX to enable > > better (and application-aware) monitoring solutions at collectors > > (or mediators). > > > > Let us know any comments you can have, > > Saverio > >
- [IPFIX] SIP/RTP extensions to IPFIX: SIPFIX Saverio Niccolini
- Re: [IPFIX] SIP/RTP extensions to IPFIX: SIPFIX Atsushi Kobayashi
- Re: [IPFIX] SIP/RTP extensions to IPFIX: SIPFIX Saverio Niccolini