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

PJ Aitken <> Thu, 16 February 2017 12:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5730D129AB8; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 04:28:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6kg5l86nGZXT; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 04:27:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2620:100:9005:71::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 035481294E6; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 04:27:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd ( []) by ( with SMTP id v1GCHcd9002277; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 04:17:38 -0800
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP id 28m20cg1nj-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 16 Feb 2017 04:17:38 -0800
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 05:17:35 -0700
Received: from [] ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:17:30 +0100
To: =?UTF-8?B?5p2O5oyv5by6?= <>, "" <>, grow-bounces <>, zhoutianran <>
References: <2d89235f-bbd2-4774-9472-4c4cea99a0e4@Tims-iPhone>
From: PJ Aitken <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 12:17:25 +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: <2d89235f-bbd2-4774-9472-4c4cea99a0e4@Tims-iPhone>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------4FFBB7D44CD467F5C1E090E3"
X-Originating-IP: []
X-ClientProxiedBy: ( To (
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-02-16_09:, , 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-1702160119
Archived-At: <>
Cc: opsawg <>, opsawg-chairs <>, grow <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [IPFIX] [GROW] [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll fordraft-li-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-02
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 12:28:00 -0000

If the list would be longer than can be accommodated in a single IPFIX 
message, then some mechanism would need to be defined to allow the list 
to be exported.

Ideally this should be a generic mechanism allowing the export of any 
large IPFIX content. However, it might be simpler to define a mechanism 
that's specific to the export of long lists.

There may be several solutions. eg, it might be a compression mechanism 
allowing the content to fit into a single message. Or the content might 
be carried across multiple messages.

If you feel it's an issue - especially if it would block your current 
work - then please start the discussion in the OPSAWG because the IPFIX 
WG is closed.


On 16/02/17 12:02, 李振强 wrote:
> The length of IPFIX message is sufficient for BGP standard 
> communities, since the length of standard community is 4 octets. But 
> the sizes of extended community, large community and wide community 
> are bigger than the size of standard community. If the working group 
> agrees to cover the above all kinds of communities in this draft, do 
> you think we should open the discussion for IPFIX and basicList 
> message splitting?