Re: [IPFIX] [GROW] [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-li-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-02

PJ Aitken <pjaitken@brocade.com> Thu, 16 February 2017 21:10 UTC

Return-Path: <paitken@Brocade.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 C9B331294A5; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:10:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GNvXqPYgP0Cf; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:10:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-000f0801.pphosted.com (mx0b-000f0801.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:71::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 872A11294F4; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:10:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0048192.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-000f0801.pphosted.com (8.16.0.20/8.16.0.20) with SMTP id v1GLAESg022426; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:10:14 -0800
Received: from brmwp-exmb12.corp.brocade.com ([208.47.132.227]) by mx0b-000f0801.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 28m1ya1xde-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:10:14 -0800
Received: from EMEAWP-EXMB11.corp.brocade.com (172.29.11.85) by BRMWP-EXMB12.corp.brocade.com (172.16.59.130) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:10:11 -0700
Received: from [10.252.49.8] (10.252.49.8) by EMEAWP-EXMB11.corp.brocade.com (172.29.11.85) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 22:10:05 +0100
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, "lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com" <lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com>
References: <BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21A22B8B05@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <7023a95c-c6a9-4d6a-b009-8f35e447aa4e@gmail.com> <76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C9279357F4EA@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <2017021611151726192539@chinamobile.com> <9f060f89-a2a8-5f87-4d66-088cb389ac14@brocade.com> <92fe27fc-f26b-ce1a-44c3-c16a33f9ad01@gmail.com>
From: PJ Aitken <pjaitken@brocade.com>
Message-ID: <975eea07-1183-2356-dd32-e5543f9f8aa6@brocade.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 21:10:00 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <92fe27fc-f26b-ce1a-44c3-c16a33f9ad01@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [10.252.49.8]
X-ClientProxiedBy: hq1wp-excas12.corp.brocade.com (10.70.38.22) To EMEAWP-EXMB11.corp.brocade.com (172.29.11.85)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-02-16_14:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1612050000 definitions=main-1702160196
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipfix/k7mCdisWKihEvv1DNL-SrNHcLNo>
Cc: opsawg <opsawg@ietf.org>, opsawg-chairs <opsawg-chairs@ietf.org>, grow <grow@ietf.org>, "ipfix@ietf.org" <ipfix@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [IPFIX] [GROW] [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-li-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-02
X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 16 Feb 2017 21:10:24 -0000

Stewart: yes, there could be multiple templates with multiple data records.

However there's nothing to provide the necessary "All of <these>" 
semantics to allow the collector to join up the lists in a meaningful 
way - ie, specifying which lists to use / not to use, and in which order 
if that's important.

Also, the data held by the collector may be indeterminate as the data 
records change - eg if list#1 and list#4 were updated, but updates 
hadn't yet been received for list#2 and list#3. So there'd have to be a 
"hold" time when nothing is changing and/or a signal that the current 
state is good - which then leads to questions of how to handle data loss 
(eg, if the update for list#2 wasn't received in time, or arrived late.

If single packet data export is no longer sufficient - as seems likely - 
then, since we already have several ideas, it'd be worth some IPFIX 
experts pondering what the correct solution should be.

P.


> On 16/02/2017 11:15, PJ Aitken wrote:
>>
>> IPFIX Collectors might reasonably assume that information in 
>> subsequent messages supersedes information in earlier messages, so 
>> splitting a list across multiple messages would not have the desired 
>> effect.
>>
>>
>
> Hi Paul
>
> Could you not have multiple discrete templates?
>
> Stewart