Re: [IPFIX] Comments ondraft-kashima-ipfix-data-link-layer-monitoring-01.txt

[Nevil Brownlee <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dharani:

I agree that being able to report on Layer 2 is important and useful -
we just need to work out the best strategy to document/standardise it.

Cheers, Nevil


Dharani Vilwanathan (dharani) wrote:
> Hi Nevil/Paul,
> 
> I too would like to convey that there is a need for obtaining layer 2
> info in IPFIX records along with rest of the IP fields of a flow.
> 
> We would like to make sure this will be of interest to IPFIX working
> group and community, because Yaonan, Laxmi and I are working on various
> ethernet types and see if we can address missing fields. We would like
> to bring this to IPFIX forum once we have the details. 
> 
> Thanks
> dharani
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of Paul Aitken (paitken)
> Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 2:43 PM
> To: Nevil Brownlee
> Cc: IPFIX Working Group
> Subject: Re: [IPFIX] Comments
> ondraft-kashima-ipfix-data-link-layer-monitoring-01.txt
> 
> Nevil,
> 
>> This draft introuces three new IPFIX Information Elements (IEs) that 
>> would enable IPFIX to be used for monitoring (parts of) in 
>> data-link-layer parts of packet headers.  It concentrates on Ethernet,
> 
>> especially as used in providing layer-2 VPN services (IEEE 802.1ad and
> 
>> 802.1ah).
>>
>> Now that I've read it and thought about it, I have three comments:
>>
>> 1. The IPFIX/PSAMP architecture standardises the collection of
>>    *IP-related* data, this proposal would extend it to cover data from
>>    other parts of a packet's headers.  That would be a significant
>>    extension.  Is there support for such a generalisation?
> 
> Yes, very much so. We have customer need for this. It would be far
> preferable for us to standardise through IPFIX than to go down a
> proprietary route.
> 
> Note that there is precedent for this, since the IPFIX info model
> already contains some non-IP fields - eg, MPLS, MAC address, VLAN.
> 
> 
>> 2. It's presented as a simple, minimal extension to IPFIX/PSAMP,
>>    simply adding three new IEs PSAMP IEs, i.e with numbers above 338.
>>    Does it provide enough detail?
> 
> Actually, the dataLinkFrameSize and dataLinkFrameSection definitions are
> 
> simply verbatim copies from the old draft-ietf-psamp-info-09.
> 
> 
>>    Should there be more than just three?
>>    For example, how about having separate IEs for S-VID, C-VID, B-VID
>>    and I=SID?  What other IEs are needed for PPP and WiMAX?
>>
>> 3. The description of proposed IE dataLinkFrameType seems rather
>>    minimal - eventually we'll want to add more data link types.  For
>>    example, the ifType-MIB (www.iana.org/assignments/ianaiftype-mib)
>>    has a much longer list.  Maybe we have to choose here between a
> long
>>    list of types, each with its own set of fields, or a short list of
>>    very general fields?  A short, simple list seems very appealing!
> 
> I would propose an extensible IANA sub-registry.
> 
> Cheers,
> P.
> 


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
  Nevil Brownlee                    Computer Science Department | ITS
  Phone: [phone] x88941             The University of Auckland
  FAX: [phone]   Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand