Re: [IPFIX] IPFIX export: SNMP versus physical Interface

Brian Trammell <trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch> Tue, 26 July 2011 13:31 UTC

Return-Path: <trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
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 B877721F86AC for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 06:31:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 owNA+pTg9ebP for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 06:31:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch (smtp.ee.ethz.ch [129.132.2.219]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6B7321F86A5 for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 06:31:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47DDFD9324; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:31:02 +0200 (MEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new on smtp.ee.ethz.ch
Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.ee.ethz.ch [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id JMNyBFjuLame; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:31:01 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from dhcp-678d.meeting.ietf.org (unknown [130.129.103.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: briant) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D7E90D9302; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:31:00 +0200 (MEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Brian Trammell <trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
In-Reply-To: <4E2EBFEA.7080109@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 09:29:30 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5F0DA83D-DA24-43C7-8F63-E68C80A7FCC5@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
References: <4E2EB359.8070309@cisco.com> <20110726131514.GA6421@elstar.local> <4E2EBFEA.7080109@cisco.com>
To: Paul Aitken <paitken@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: IETF IPFIX Working Group <ipfix@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [IPFIX] IPFIX export: SNMP versus physical Interface
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: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:31:04 -0000

hi Paul,

The intent is clear from your email, but the terminology here seems like it might be implementation-specific; i'd be in favor of the change but it should be clear that:

10/14 are for "interfaces" as the term is most commonly used (I'm not saying that's the right way to say it, need more coffee)

252/253 are for "physical interfaces" in the special case that the physical interface is different than the notional interface.

Speaking of this in terms of interface "virtualization" requires someone to know more about precisely what sort of virtualization...

Cheers,

Brian


On Jul 26, 2011, at 9:23 AM, Paul Aitken wrote:

> Juergen,
> 
>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 01:30:17PM +0100, Paul Aitken wrote:
>>> Dear IPFIXers,
>>> 
>>> I noticed that the definitions of fields 10 and 14, and fields 252
>>> and 253 are confusingly similar. See below.
>>> 
>>> Cisco uses fields 10 and 14 to export the logical or virtual
>>> interface (eg. SVI, tunnel), while fields 252 and 253 export the
>>> actual physical interface.
>>> 
>>> For example, if we have an SVI configured on a VLAN, the SNMP index
>>> of the SVI would be exported using fields 10 and 14, while the SNMP
>>> index of the physical port in that VLAN would be exported with
>>> fields 252 and 253.
>>> 
>>> So I propose to update fields 10 and 11 to say, "the index of the
>>> logical or virtual interface ...", to contrast with 252 and 253
>>> which say, "The index of a networking device's physical interface
>>> ...".
>> Not sure this is right because if I only have a physical interface and
>> no logical/virtual interfaces, I think I still want to report the
>> physical interface in fields 10 and 11, no? I am not sure why there is
>> actually a need to change something here.
> 
> In this case, physical == logical, so either 10/14 or 252/253 would be correct.
> 
> We've always used 10/14 in this case.
> 
> P.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IPFIX mailing list
> IPFIX@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix