[ipfix] IPFIX followup charter

[Juergen Quittek <[e-mail]>]

Dear all,

As you know, the IPFIX working group has completed its charter
by submitting all planned documents (with a delay of several years)
to the IESG for publication as RFC.  Also the PSAMP WG will reach
this status soon.

Building on the results of these WGs, there are a lot of related
ongoing activities that are producing Internet drafts related to
IPFIX.  Several of them have already been presented at recent IPFIX
and PSAMP sessions.  But working on them is not covered by the IPFIX
or PSAMP charter.  If we want to continue this IPFIX-related work,
we need a new charter that gives it a home at the IETF.

The text below lists and discusses related work and suggests a
charter for a follow-up WG.  It is the output of several discussions
 with Tanja, Benoit, and Nevil.

The proposed charter is very short-lived and includes only the three
most mature work items out of a longer list of candidates.  The basic
idea is completing this charter within less than a year and then
re-chartering to cover further work items that have progressed until
then.  This lean work model with short-lived charters allows the group
to focus on a limited number of issues and is preferable to long-lived
WGs working on many issues in parallel.  (It is highly recommended
by the IESG.)

Please have a look at it and state whether or not you think it makes
sense to have an IPFIX follow-up WG.  Also please read the proposed
charter carefully and express your objections, concerns, comments,
requests for modifications, etc.

The plan is to elaborate the new charter proposal on this list and
submit an agreed version to our area directors soon.  The deadline
for requesting BoF sessions at the next IETF meeting in Dallas is
February 13.

Thanks,

    Juergen


=======================================================
Why do we need to continue the work of IPFIX and PSAMP?
=======================================================

IPFIX has completed its charter and PSAMP will do so very soon.  Still, there
are a lot of ongoing activities in the community of these two WGs:

1. Flow aggregation
   draft-dressler-ipfix-aggregation-01.txt

2. reducing redundancy in IPFIX and PSAMP reports
   draft-boschi-export-perpktinfo-00.txt

3. IPFIX implementation guidelines
   draft-boschi-ipfix-implementation-guidelines-00.txt

4. Path-coupled meter configuration
   draft-fessi-nsis-m-nslp-framework-02.txt
   draft-dressler-nsis-metering-nslp-03.txt
   (currently under discussion in the NSIS WG, but not covered
   by the NSIS charter. It is a candidate work item for NSIS
   re-chartering, but the NSIS WG asks if it would not be better
   covered by IPFIX)

5. IPFIX reliability
   draft-bclaise-ipfix-reliability-00.txt

6. Reporting bi-directional flows with IPFIX
   draft-boschi-ipfix-biflow-01.txt

7. a format for storing IPFIX records
   draft-trammell-ipfix-file-00.txt

8. IPFIX MIB module
   no I-D yet, but two teams working on it independently.

9. Common IPFIX templates
   draft-stephan-isp-templates-01.txt

10. Reliable server pooling for IPFIX
    draft-coene-rserpool-applic-ipfix-01.txt

11. Flow sampling
    draft-molina-flow-selection-00.txt (expired)

Did I miss something?


1.-4. and 9. have already been discussed at past IPFIX or PSAMP sessions.

This list shows two things.
  - There is a community interested in IPFIX that is not too small.
  - This community and is willing to further work on issues IPFIX-related
    issues in the IETF.
This is a very good starting point for a charter discussion.


============================
Which work items are suited?
============================

Not all of the issues listed above are at a stage, where they should be
considered as a WG work item, but 1.-4. are quite well developed and 5.
and 6. are candidates.  Since 4. is a candidate for NSIS re-chartering,
I dropped it from the following considerations.

Each of 1.-3. has been presented at IPFIX or PSAMP sessions already two times
with some discussion on the suggested approach.  For all I sense an agreement
in the IPFIX WG (at least no objections so far) that these issues are relevant
work and potential WG work items (to be confirmed on the list, of course).

  - The flow aggregation work is rather mature.  Actually this draft covers
    something that is missing in IPFIX: How to tell the collector that the
    metering probe does not have the standard (Netflow default) configuration,
    but filters and aggregates certain flows.
    There are some terminology problems and a set of technical issues to be
    solved, but there is not problem with the general direction and the chosen
    approach.  Still, thorough reviews are missing as well as a discussion on
    how to fit it well into the IPFIX architecture.

  - Reducing redundancy in IPFIX and PSAMP reports is an issue that was
    received very well by both WGs when past versions of the IDs were presented.
    It is considered a useful method of applying IPFIX efficiently.
    Still, the current drafts were considered as to specific.  They apply
    the optimization to packet reports only. At the last PSAMP meeting it was
    noted that the method should be generalized such that it can be applied to
    all redundant IPFIX transmissions.  This generalization needs to be done,
    but the way to go is clear and basically agreed on.

  - The implementation guidelines are considered the most important work item
    by many WG members (including myself).  Many people are currently implementing
    IPFIX and several recommendations were identified at the first IPFIX interop
    (next one is scheduled for end of February).  The sooner this document is
    available, the more will help improving ongoing implementations.
    My problem with this item is that the current individual draft is in a bad
    shape.  Therefore, the milestones for this item are later than for the
    others.

The two weaker candidates for WG items are IPFIX reliability and reporting of
bidirectional flows.  Both have been requested on the IPFIX mailing list several
time in the past years, but we could not agree on making them part of the basic
IPFIX standard.
But as add-ons, that integrate well with the standard, they can be considered,
particularly since I heard about operator requests for both of them.
A problem of these issues is that so far they have not been presented at IPFIX
or PSAMP sessions and there has not been a discussion yet on the approaches
followed by the existing drafts.  Therefore, these two are not included in the
draft proposal below.


=================================
Charter Proposal:
Efficient Use of IPFIX (USEIPFIX)
=================================

The IPFIX working group has specified the IPFIX protocol for exporting
flow records. The PSAMP working group has specified the usage of the
IPFIX protocol for exporting packet records. With both specifications
available, several implementers have started building applications
using the IPFIX protocol.

At a first interoperability testing event, several IPFIX protocol
implementations were tested. The experiences made at this event were
fed back to IPFIX protocol specification, particularly for removing
ambiguities.  In addition, several lessons were learned about how to
implement and use IPFIX correctly and efficiently.  The exchange among
different implementers further led to new ideas for advanced usage of
IPFIX.  Many of these ideas are currently documented in individual
Internet drafts.

The goal of the USEIPFIX working group is producing best current
practice and guideline documents concerning implementation, application
and usage of the IPFIX protocol.

Out of scope are modifications of the core IPFIX and PSAMP protocol
specifications.  In scope is the definition of new IPFIX and PSAMP
information elements within the documents produced by the USEIPFIX WG.

Specific Goals of the USEIPFIX WG are:

o Developing guidelines for implementers based on experiences
  gained individually by implementers and jointly at interoperability
  testing events.  The guidelines will give recommendations for
  integrating IPFIX observation points, measurement processes, and
  exporting processes into the packet flow at different kinds of IPFIX
  devices.  They will make suggestions for efficient implementation of
  the IPFIX protocol features and identify parts of the IPFIX
  specification that have already been misunderstood by several
  implementers.  For some implementation choices that the protocol
  specification leaves to the implementer, the guidelines will discuss
  advantages and disadvantages of the different choices.

o Developing methods and means for an efficient use of the IPFIX
  protocol that reduces redundancy in flow reports.  The basic idea
  to be followed is very simple.  For multiple flow records that all
  report the same value in one or more of the contained IPFIX
  information elements, these values are removed from the flow records
  and instead reported once for all in a separate record.  Such an
  approach integrates very well with the IPFIX protocol and only needs
  few means for expressing the relationship between flow records and
  corresponding separate records.

o Develop a method for flow aggregation reducing the amount of
  measurement data exchanged between IPFIX exporters and IPFIX
  collectors.  Using aggregation techniques, measurement information of
  multiple similar flows is aggregated into few meta-flow records.
  Applied aggregation rules need to be communicate.

o Investigate further ways of efficiently using the IPFIX protocols
  including but not limited to
    - providing reliability for IPFIX transmissions,
    - reporting bi-directional flows,
    - path-coupled configuration of IPFIX devices,
    - reporting the configuration of IPFIX devices,
    - flow sampling at IPFIX devices,
    - storing IPFIX flow records and packet records.
  These issues are not current work items of the USEIPFIX WG but are
  evaluated as candidates for potential future work items.


Milestones:

Mar 2006  Initial version of flow aggregation methods
Mar 2006  Initial version of reducing redundandy in IPFIX records
Mar 2006  IPFIX and PSAMP interoperability testing event (not a real WG milestone?)
Apr 2006  Initial version of implementation guidelines
Jul 2006  Submit flow aggregation methods to IESG
Sep 2006  Submit reducing redundancy in IPFIX records to IESG
Sep 2006  Submit implementation guidelines to IESG


--
Help        mailto:[e-mail] and say "help" in message body
Unsubscribe mailto:[e-mail] and say
"unsubscribe ipfix" in message body
Archive     http://ipfix.doit.wisc.edu/archive/