Re: [IPFIX] ipfix mib export and context information

"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Thu, 07 July 2011 11:42 UTC

Return-Path: <dromasca@avaya.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 21DAD21F8812 for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 04:42:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.069
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.069 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.530, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 SKqRuSY-8nRX for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 04:42:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C9F221F8795 for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 04:42:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgsBACebFU7GmAcF/2dsb2JhbABNBphljzV3sTgCmxUCgzqCfASXYYso
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,493,1304308800"; d="scan'208";a="255318530"
Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 07 Jul 2011 07:42:56 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.10]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 07 Jul 2011 07:41:39 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 13:42:54 +0200
Message-ID: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A040358E488@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110707110102.GB8896@elstar.local>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [IPFIX] ipfix mib export and context information
Thread-Index: Acw8lTeyr8GAaNNZRw2Z+e2C39v+YAABX5xA
References: <20110630093904.GB3317@elstar.local> <4E158A7B.2030809@cisco.com> <20110707110102.GB8896@elstar.local>
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, "Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com>
Cc: ipfix@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [IPFIX] ipfix mib export and context information
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: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 11:42:59 -0000

Hi, 

I believe that this approach is also more consistent from a security
point of vew and can remove possible concerns of disclosing information
from different contexts if carried in the same flow record. 

Regards,

Dan 
(speaking as contributor)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipfix-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 2:01 PM
> To: Benoit Claise
> Cc: ipfix@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [IPFIX] ipfix mib export and context information
> 
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 12:29:15PM +0200, Benoit Claise wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Let me ask the question differently.
> > Do you see a use case for the export, within a single flow record,
> > of MIB variables from different SNMP contexts?
> 
> Depends on the definition of "flow". As long as we keep the definition
> found in RFC 3917 section 2.1, the likelihood of exporting MIB
> variables from different SNMP context for a single flow record is
> likely diminishing small.
> 
> That said, I think the main use case for MIB variable export via IPFIX
> seems to be related to a much more liberal definition of a "flow",
> that is, one uses IPFIX to simply stream MIB variables towards a
> collector instead of polling them, likely independent of any traffic
> flows. In such a scenario, the likelihood to want different SNMP
> contexts in a single flow record might increase, but it might still be
> acceptable to have a limitation that a single flow record can only
> carry data from a single context (since SNMP has kind of the same
> restriction - a PDU is always bound to a specific context).
> 
> So I guess my answer is "no", I do not see a strong use case for
> having data from different contexts in a single flow record (but
> different flow records should be able to carry data from different
> SNMP contexts).
> 
> /js
> 
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> _______________________________________________
> IPFIX mailing list
> IPFIX@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix