Re: [IPFIX] No active/inactive timeout definitions in any IPFIX RFCs? Idle versus inactive terminology? (part of draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-09 review)
Paul Aitken <paitken@cisco.com> Wed, 18 April 2012 16:02 UTC
Return-Path: <paitken@cisco.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 948CE21F8459 for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DWXNr00ySHpQ for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEE8521F84EA for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=paitken@cisco.com; l=11517; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1334764937; x=1335974537; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=XsqdMxNReM2PmgC9tzMnyFEeLZuTsIiO0YHqeu7vMEI=; b=Y6QKtj9eAMHhNP1bZVhOpiqviWfxN+kvDO2RGb+lHqPkjK/hAtt90Odl ZQwcgewRdrZkyLzuGsUZm6mf4o5tAzEizK5R6YnJ0JIbUgIvgL7vpj4oy w71mnZ+9F9/ka3l3gZTrgEfaS5VVa+f4K5cryz3mOGZDEVV5rl7UHlptn g=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.75,442,1330905600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="135560243"
Received: from ams-core-3.cisco.com ([144.254.72.76]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Apr 2012 16:02:16 +0000
Received: from [144.254.153.63] (dhcp-144-254-153-63.cisco.com [144.254.153.63]) by ams-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q3IG2GVh013128; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:02:16 GMT
Message-ID: <4F8EE58A.3000007@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:02:18 +0100
From: Paul Aitken <paitken@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
References: <4F841487.8090604@cisco.com> <4F846107.7040907@net.in.tum.de> <4F8E9C9E.4080404@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F8E9C9E.4080404@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000005080107000605010200"
Cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>, "ipfix@ietf.org" <ipfix@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [IPFIX] No active/inactive timeout definitions in any IPFIX RFCs? Idle versus inactive terminology? (part of draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-09 review)
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: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:02:23 -0000
Benoit, Good plan; no objection. P. On 18/04/12 11:51, Benoit Claise wrote: > Dear all, > > I believe that consistency is important amongst all the IPFIX documents. > What Brian expressed "Given that 5102 predates all other > (directly-IPFIX-related) references, and there's an IE in the IANA > registry called flowIdleTimeout, I'd tend to go with "idle" for this > one." is I believe the right way forward. > And Gerhard mentioned " We could change the name in the MIB and in > ipfix-config if consistency is important." > > So let me propose the following: > - http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model-10, > in the RFC-editor queue: > we could still change inactive to idle > - http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipfix-rfc5815bis-03, in the > RFC-editor queue > we could still change inactive to idle > - Editorial errata on RFC5472: > "inactive" -> "idle" > Potentially, an extra sentence such as: "note that the idle > timeout is sometimes called the inactive timeout in the industry" > - http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-09.txt > replace inactive by idle. > > Any objections? > > Regards, Benoit. >> Hi Benoit, >> >> The parameter was always called inactive timeout in IPFIX MIB. >> ipfix-config changed from idleTimeout to inactiveTimeout in >> draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model-02 to be consistent with the MIB. >> >> We could change the name in the MIB and in ipfix-config if >> consistency is important. >> >> Gerhard >> >> >> On 10.04.2012 13:07, Benoit Claise wrote: >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Reading draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-09.txt, I realized that this >>> draft defines two new terms: Active Timeout and Inactive Timeout. >>> I was thinking: surely, we have defined those terms already in some >>> IPFIX RFCs. >>> Actually, I was unable to find any references.... Have I overlooked >>> something? >>> >>> The only pointers I could find are in RFC5102 >>> >>> >>> 5.11.1. flowActiveTimeout >>> >>> >>> Description: >>> The number of seconds after which an active Flow is timed out >>> anyway, even if there is still a continuous flow of packets. >>> Abstract Data Type: unsigned16 >>> ElementId: 36 >>> Status: current >>> Units: seconds >>> >>> >>> 5.11.2. flowIdleTimeout >>> >>> >>> >>> Description: >>> A Flow is considered to be timed out if no packets belonging to >>> the Flow have been observed for the number of seconds specified by >>> this field. >>> Abstract Data Type: unsigned16 >>> ElementId: 37 >>> Status: current >>> Units: seconds >>> >>> >>> 5.11.3. flowEndReason >>> >>> Description: >>> The reason for Flow termination. The range of values includes the >>> following: >>> >>> 0x01: idle timeout >>> The Flow was terminated because it was considered to be >>> idle. >>> >>> 0x02: active timeout >>> The Flow was terminated for reporting purposes while it was >>> still active, for example, after the maximum lifetime of >>> unreported Flows was reached. >>> >>> ... >>> >>> Here is one issue. >>> Some documents refer to inactive timeout >>> RFC5472, >>> ipfixMeteringProcessCacheInactiveTimeout in >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipfix-rfc5815bis-03 >>> inactiveTimeout in >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model-10 >>> While some others refer to idle timeout >>> RFC 5102, >>> draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-09 >>> >>> Any proposal to fix this problem? >>> >>> Regards, Benoit (OPS A.D.) >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IPFIX mailing list >>> IPFIX@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix > > > > _______________________________________________ > IPFIX mailing list > IPFIX@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
- [IPFIX] No active/inactive timeout definitions in… Benoit Claise
- Re: [IPFIX] No active/inactive timeout definition… Jan Novak (janovak)
- Re: [IPFIX] No active/inactive timeout definition… Brian Trammell
- Re: [IPFIX] No active/inactive timeout definition… Gerhard Muenz
- Re: [IPFIX] No active/inactive timeout definition… Simon Leinen
- Re: [IPFIX] No active/inactive timeout definition… Brian Trammell
- Re: [IPFIX] No active/inactive timeout definition… Jan Novak (janovak)
- Re: [IPFIX] No active/inactive timeout definition… Benoit Claise
- Re: [IPFIX] No active/inactive timeout definition… Paul Aitken
- Re: [IPFIX] No active/inactive timeout definition… Brian Trammell
- Re: [IPFIX] No active/inactive timeout definition… Andrew Feren