Re: [IPFIX] NetFlow v9 to IPFIX conversion
Brian Trammell <ietf@trammell.ch> Tue, 06 January 2015 15:34 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf@trammell.ch>
X-Original-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F5A91A8873 for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 07:34:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 T3dGuUMQozmC for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 07:34:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from trammell.ch (trammell.ch [5.148.172.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C70B91A1A67 for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 07:34:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pb-10243.ethz.ch (pb-10243.ethz.ch [82.130.102.152]) by trammell.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 130641A0920; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 16:33:47 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
From: Brian Trammell <ietf@trammell.ch>
In-Reply-To: <23B7BE54EACBED43957AB709C564F7B70185A1FCCD@EMEA-EXCH01.corp.brocade.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 16:33:47 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2EEDA971-A002-436B-9BDF-4941E4883925@trammell.ch>
References: <CALbOe5O0e3tw--vCrj9FkFWVvoMAb9iZaXyRYqfNFSSqQUT94w@mail.gmail.com> <23B7BE54EACBED43957AB709C564F7B70185A1FC39@EMEA-EXCH01.corp.brocade.com> <CE3C776B-2C96-4370-BD7C-4EC3DE73F2A0@trammell.ch> <23B7BE54EACBED43957AB709C564F7B70185A1FCCD@EMEA-EXCH01.corp.brocade.com>
To: Paul Aitken <paitken@Brocade.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipfix/rWOpETfNVBkcyIESj3DUT6as7Ws
Cc: "ipfix@ietf.org" <ipfix@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [IPFIX] NetFlow v9 to IPFIX conversion
X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 15:34:34 -0000
hi Paul, > On 06 Jan 2015, at 16:31, Paul Aitken <paitken@Brocade.com> wrote: > > Brian, > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Brian Trammell [mailto:ietf@trammell.ch] >> Sent: 06 January 2015 14:26 >> To: Paul Aitken >> Cc: Petr Velan; ipfix@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [IPFIX] NetFlow v9 to IPFIX conversion >> >> hi Paul, Petr, >> >> So unless I misunderstand here, what we're talking about is third party vendors >> who have more or less NF9-compatible exporters that are squatting on chunks >> of the NF9 IE number space > > Correct - though "squatting" might not be quite the right word. These IDs were allocated with cisco's knowledge in order to prevent NFv9 ID clashes. > > >> (i.e., there are no Cisco-defined IEs for NetFlow 9 which are > 2^15). > > I believe there are many Cisco IEs > 32768. Ah, okay. Then, on review... well, while maybe I'd tone down the cynicism a little bit, everything I say below about my opinion stands. :) Cheers, Brian >> So the first question is why aren't they using IPFIX in the first place? But alas... > > Doubtless it was easier to use some NFv9 IDs than to upgrade exporters and collectors to IPFIX. > > >> It doesn't seem right to me to use Cisco's PEN for this, since even though Cisco >> has reserved the squatted blocks they know about to prevent interoperability >> problems, there is no guarantee they know about all the blocks that exist, and >> it's kind of unfair to ask one company to burn PEN space to correct the mistakes >> of others. > > +1 > > >> I'd be in favor of asking IANA for a new PEN for this, since it really is a protocol- >> level incompatibility between NetFlow 9 and IPFIX, and it would be a relatively >> quick AD-sponsored or opsawg draft to do. (I do think it needs an RFC, so that >> the PEN registry can point at something to say "what is this?"; see e.g. PEN >> 29305 for RFC 5103). >> >> Yes, this has the problem that squatting blocks might collide with each other. I'm >> perfectly okay with that. As a matter of policy, we should not sanction the de >> facto creation of codepoints in public or semipublic registries through squatting, >> and while building a registry of squatted blocks to appropriate PENs is a more >> *elegant* solution, it seems like way too much effort for the community to >> expend to come up with a nice fix to a messy problem caused by the lazy. > > As far as I know, that registry currently has just 5 non-cisco entries, so it wouldn't be hard to code. > > However as you say there could be other ID conflicts which aren't known about today, and a new PEN would remove the guesswork. > > P. > > >>> On 06 Jan 2015, at 14:52, Paul Aitken <paitken@Brocade.com> wrote: >>> >>> Petr, please see replies inline: >>> >>> >>> From: IPFIX [mailto:ipfix-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Petr Velan >>> Sent: 06 January 2015 12:03 >>> To: ipfix@ietf.org >>> Subject: [IPFIX] NetFlow v9 to IPFIX conversion >>> >>> Hello all, >>> >>> I'm not sure whether this is the right place to ask, but we encountered >> following problem when converting NetFlow v9 messages to IPFIX. >>> >>> Some vendors (I've heard of ntop) are using elements IDs large than 32767 in >> NetFlow v9. >>> >>> [P] That’s not invalid in NFv9. RFC 3954 allows a 16-bit “Field Type” ID. >>> >>> >>> When converting messages with these elements to IPFIX, they are considered >> to be Enterprise Numbers. To generate proper IPFIX message, we need to do >> one of the following: >>> a) Generate a list of the elements and map them to PEN of the correct vendor. >> However, this would result in an attempt to cover all possible elements that >> anybody used in NetFlow v9. Moreover, we would still have to somehow handle >> the cases where the element is unknown >>> >>> [P] When I was netflow–police at cisco, the guys at Plixer helped to identify >> non-cisco NFv9 exporters, and I allocated blocks of 500 or 1000 IDs for each >> them in the 50,000 – 60,000 range – effectively blacklisting those IDs so that >> cisco wouldn’t create duplicate IDs. At that time there were just 5 such blocks >> recognized by Cisco. If we can identify a PEN for each block then it’d be simple >> to write a decoder. Unfortunately this method doesn’t extend to recognizing >> future allocations, or export IDs that weren’t known to us at the time. >>> >>> BTW, you’re also supposing that the IDs < 32768 are identical and will remain >> so in future. >>> >>> >>> b) Request a PEN for NetFlow compatibility and just add this PEN for every >> element that has ID larger than 32767. >>> >>> [P] It’d be more accurate to use Cisco’s PEN for this ;-) However in principal >> it’s a NFv9-in-IPFIX indicator. >>> >>> >>> >>> Personally, I believe that the b) is more general and error-prone. Do you think, >> that it would be possible to dedicate whole PEN to this cause? >>> >>> [P] I believe you could convince IANA to allocate an ID. However I’m not yet >> convinced that it’s a good idea. >>> >>> P. >>> >>> >>> Thank you for any opinions, >>> >>> Petr Velan >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IPFIX mailing list >>> IPFIX@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix >
- Re: [IPFIX] NetFlow v9 to IPFIX conversion Petr Velan
- Re: [IPFIX] NetFlow v9 to IPFIX conversion Paul Aitken
- Re: [IPFIX] NetFlow v9 to IPFIX conversion Gerhard Muenz
- [IPFIX] NetFlow v9 to IPFIX conversion Petr Velan
- Re: [IPFIX] NetFlow v9 to IPFIX conversion Paul Aitken
- Re: [IPFIX] NetFlow v9 to IPFIX conversion Brian Trammell
- Re: [IPFIX] NetFlow v9 to IPFIX conversion Paul Aitken
- Re: [IPFIX] NetFlow v9 to IPFIX conversion Brian Trammell
- Re: [IPFIX] NetFlow v9 to IPFIX conversion Andrew Feren
- Re: [IPFIX] NetFlow v9 to IPFIX conversion Andrew Feren
- Re: [IPFIX] NetFlow v9 to IPFIX conversion Petr Velan
- Re: [IPFIX] NetFlow v9 to IPFIX conversion Paul Aitken