Re: [IPFIX] ipfix mib export and context information

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Thu, 07 July 2011 11:42 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@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 3218621F8795 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: -2.569
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 gksiETZPQJE5 for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 04:42:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F67F21F87FF for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 04:42:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p67BgvGS018260 for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 13:42:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.55.43.52] (ams-bclaise-8713.cisco.com [10.55.43.52]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p67BguLQ013098 for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 13:42:57 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4E159BC0.8010704@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 13:42:56 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ipfix@ietf.org
References: <20110630093904.GB3317@elstar.local> <4E158A7B.2030809@cisco.com> <20110707110102.GB8896@elstar.local>
In-Reply-To: <20110707110102.GB8896@elstar.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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

Juergen,

Good summary.
Basically, I would agree that there is no strong use cases right now
So I would like to the draft to the solution a) and b.1) from your 
initial email.

Regards, Benoit.
> 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
>