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

Paul Aitken <paitken@cisco.com> Mon, 08 March 2010 22:42 UTC

Return-Path: <paitken@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF2343A6A06 for <ipfix@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 14:42:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.632
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.633, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2JL6qElEkRug for <ipfix@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 14:42:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4DBC3A68E7 for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 14:42:53 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: ams-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Au8AALoMlUuQ/uCWe2dsb2JhbACbLxUBAQsLJAYcoWKYNYJUgiQEjjs
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,604,1262563200"; d="scan'208";a="4103549"
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.150]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Mar 2010 22:09:52 +0000
Received: from [10.61.68.3] (ams3-vpn-dhcp1027.cisco.com [10.61.68.3]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o28MguUF011714; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 22:42:56 GMT
Message-ID: <4B957D70.5020305@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:42:56 +0000
From: Paul Aitken <paitken@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.22) Gecko/20090605 SeaMonkey/1.1.17 (Ubuntu-1.1.17+nobinonly-0ubuntu0.9.04.1)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Nevil Brownlee <n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz>
References: <AE36820147909644AD2A7CA014B1FB520A042922@xmb-sjc-222.amer.cisco.com> <20100218135814.C821.1AB7FA03@nttv6.net> <4B945D21.3040804@auckland.ac.nz>
In-Reply-To: <4B945D21.3040804@auckland.ac.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: IPFIX Working Group <ipfix@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [IPFIX] Comments on draft-kashima-ipfix-data-link-layer-monitoring-01.txt
X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list <ipfix.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:42:59 -0000

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.

-- 
Paul Aitken
Cisco Systems Ltd, Edinburgh, Scotland.