Re: [IPFIX] Promotion of Enterprise-Specific IEs to IANA IEs
Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Tue, 18 September 2012 14:23 UTC
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
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 E52EE21F8744 for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 07:23:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.793
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.793 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.194, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 8uY1fVTX7IV2 for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 07:23:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (spooky-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.113]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B197821F8743 for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 07:23:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q8IENDkt016069; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:23:13 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.60.67.84] (ams-bclaise-8913.cisco.com [10.60.67.84]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q8IENCBC019747; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:23:12 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <505883D0.5060709@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:23:12 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paul Aitken <paitken@cisco.com>
References: <A663EC4B-B0BC-4891-B8D9-5E1C957F86E3@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <50587825.9020305@cisco.com> <50587BB9.8010108@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <50587BB9.8010108@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ipfix@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [IPFIX] Promotion of Enterprise-Specific IEs to IANA IEs
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: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:23:16 -0000
Hi Paul, > Benoit, > > 0. Your argument that "we don't live in a perfect world" doesn't hold > in this case. Although the world may be imperfect, IPFIX implementers > MUST follow the defined standards. I can't simply put the wrong export > version, or use the wrong set ID, or the wrong field sizes, or send > NFv5 to your IPFIX collector, and simply claim "but we don't live in a > perfect world!". There is a big difference here between your examples above and what we discuss here. Your examples deal with the basis IPFIX protocol: RFC5101 or RFC5101bis. The "IE equivalence options template" would be an extension, exactly like RFC5610. RFC 5610 is Standards Track From RFC 5610: an Exporting Process exporting data using Templates containing enterprise-specific Information Elements SHOULD export an Information Element type record for each enterprise-specific Information Element it exports. So it's standards track, and it's a SHOULD. However, is it implemented? Vendors might implement the base IPFIX, but the customers/vendors/collectors take a decision for each extension. > > 1. If the equivalence options template is mandated as the IPFIX > mechanism, then EPs MUST implement it to be IPFIX compliant, perfect > world or not. Even if this new RFC contains a "MUST", this doesn't change anything to the logic. It's not because the IETF produces Standards Track RFCs with "MUST's" that they are implemented. > > 1a. Whereas, if we give a choice of two mechanisms, some may choose > one, some may choose the other, and we'll have only ourselves to blame > for the ensuing mess. No disagreement on this one. > > 2. Regardless of what collector experts say on this list, we know that > some enterprises lock down their network configuration and spend a lot > of time testing updates before rolling them out in their networks. > Allowing a device to update on the fly using an unverified third-party > configuration (even if it is from IANA) would be entirely unacceptable. I propose to let the collector people answer what (un)acceptable. Regards, Benoit. > > P. > > > On 18/09/12 14:33, Benoit Claise wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> [catching up with emails after my vacation] >> >> I believe that "IE equivalence options template" (solution 2) sounds >> like a nice idea but will not work in real live. >> In a perfect world, all the EPs would export this "IE equivalence >> options template" and the CP could ONLY rely on this mechanism. >> We don't live in a perfect world, so not all EPs will export this >> options template. This implies that the CPs need anyway a plan B: >> hard coding the mapping, potentially received from IANA. >> >> This is the exact same example as RFC5610. It's not implemented by >> all EPs (because we don't live in a perfect world), so the CPs must >> sometimes hard code the information, and they can rely on RFC5610 only. >> >> Now, I would like to hear from the collectors people on the list: >> - Would the "IE equivalence options template" be an important >> improvements? Warning: assuming that only some EPs might implement >> this feature! >> - What about the fact that the collectors don't update the registry >> frequently from IANA, as an argument for the solution (2) below? >> Do you update from IANA? Yes/No? how frequently? >> >> Regards, Benoit. >> >>> Greetings, all, >>> >>> To close the discussion from Vancouver, we have two proposals under >>> consideration for handling the transition of enterprise-specific IEs >>> used for testing, research, or other pre-standardization purposes to >>> IANA IEs: >>> >>> (1) The addition of an Enterprise-specific Reference column to the >>> IANA registry, which would include PEN(s) and IE number(s) which >>> have a description compatible with the IANA-registered IE; this is >>> covered in the present revision of the IE-DOCTORS draft. The >>> advantage of this is it provides a central registry; however, it >>> presumes a model in which CPs are either frequently updated or >>> periodically retrieve new registration information from IANA, and >>> requires all users of ESIE codepoints replaced with an IANA >>> codepoint to register that information with IANA. >>> >>> (2) The definition of an IE equivalence options template, which >>> would define the equivalence of a set of IANA and >>> enterprise-specific IEs. This would be sent by EPs which had updated >>> an IE from an older enterprise-specific codepoint to a new IANA >>> codepoint; this would be covered in a new draft which Paul Aitken >>> has (I think) already started work on. This has the advantage that >>> equivalence is not dependent on the IANA registry. Benoit noted that >>> this required the EP to (i) send additional information on session >>> startup and (ii) to be updated both to use the new IANA codepoint as >>> well as to send this additional information: a CP would not know an >>> old ESIE was equivalent to a newer IANA IE if the EP it was >>> receiving data from had not been updated. >>> >>> As I see it, there are four possible ways forward: >>> >>> (a) Support both methods: Leave approach (1) in IE-DOCTORS, develop >>> a draft describing approach (2). >>> >>> (b) Support only the IANA method: leave approach (1) in IE-DOCTORS. >>> >>> (c) Support only the Options method: remove approach (1) from >>> IE-DOCTORS, develop a draft describing approach (2). >>> >>> (d) Defer the question and leave ESIE promotion an open issue: >>> remove approach (1) from IE-DOCTORS with no present decision on a >>> draft about approach (2). >>> >>> I suppose I'm in favor of option (a), since each approach has its >>> own use cases, as long as we're clear in both IE-DOCTORS and the >>> equivalence options draft about the applicability of each approach. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Brian >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > >
- Re: [IPFIX] Promotion of Enterprise-Specific IEs … Paul Aitken
- [IPFIX] Promotion of Enterprise-Specific IEs to I… Brian Trammell
- Re: [IPFIX] Promotion of Enterprise-Specific IEs … Paul Aitken
- Re: [IPFIX] Promotion of Enterprise-Specific IEs … Brian Trammell
- Re: [IPFIX] Promotion of Enterprise-Specific IEs … Benoit Claise
- Re: [IPFIX] Promotion of Enterprise-Specific IEs … Paul Aitken
- Re: [IPFIX] Promotion of Enterprise-Specific IEs … Benoit Claise
- Re: [IPFIX] Promotion of Enterprise-Specific IEs … Andrew Feren
- Re: [IPFIX] Promotion of Enterprise-Specific IEs … Benoit Claise
- Re: [IPFIX] Promotion of Enterprise-Specific IEs … Paul Aitken
- Re: [IPFIX] Promotion of Enterprise-Specific IEs … Andrew Feren
- Re: [IPFIX] Promotion of Enterprise-Specific IEs … Paul Aitken
- Re: [IPFIX] Promotion of Enterprise-Specific IEs … Benoit Claise
- Re: [IPFIX] Promotion of Enterprise-Specific IEs … Paul Aitken
- Re: [IPFIX] Promotion of Enterprise-Specific IEs … Benoit Claise
- Re: [IPFIX] Promotion of Enterprise-Specific IEs … Paul Aitken
- Re: [IPFIX] Promotion of Enterprise-Specific IEs … Benoit Claise