Re: [ippm] [OPSAWG] draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00

[[e-mail]]

Hi Giuseppe,

Thank you for addressing my comments.
The added clarification text looks good to me.

Best Regards,
Xiao Min


Original


From: GiuseppeFioccola <[e-mail]>
To: 肖敏10093570;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
Date: 2024年04月25日 00:33
Subject: RE: [OPSAWG] draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00




Hi Xiao, All,
We have just uploaded the new revision of draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark and we added some text to clarify the point you raised about the LAG interface.
 
Regards,
 
Giuseppe
 

From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]> 
 Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2024 12:19 PM
 To: [e-mail]
 Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
 Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00


 
Got it. Thank you Thomas!
If some text can be added to clarify this usage of ingressInterface/egressInterface and ingressPhysicalInterface/egressPhysicalInterface, that would help the implementer.
 
Cheers,
Xiao Min

Original

From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>



To: 肖敏10093570;



Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;



Date: 2024年04月03日 11:41



Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00




Dear Xiao,


 

Correct. Obviously this will be exported per flow and the interface entities have to be key fields as the flow entities as well.


 

Best wishes



Thomas




 
 


On 3 Apr 2024, at 04:54, [e-mail] wrote:







Be aware: This is an external email.



 
Correcting the email address [e-mail].
 
Hi Thomas,
 
If I understand you correctly, you mean the IE exporter can use ingressInterface/egressInterface to indicate LAG port and ingressPhysicalInterface/egressPhysicalInterface to indicate LAG member port, so the receiver can deduce the implicit meanings of them if they have different values, is that right?
 
 
Cheers,
Xiao Min
 







From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>



To: 肖敏10093570;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;



Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;'[e-mail] <'[e-mail]>;



Date: 2024年04月02日 19:32



Subject: RE: [OPSAWG] draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00




Dear Xiao,
 
I agree that the description and the additional information does not provide information to distinguish between
 
ingressInterface, egressInterface
 
and
 
ingressPhysicalInterface, egressPhysicalInterface
 
However from an implementation perspective I have observed that in all cases ingressInterface and egressInterface refer to logical and ingressPhysicalInterface and egressPhysicalInterface to physical interfaces.
 
Where ingressInterfaceType and egressInterfaceType, which references to https://www.iana.org/assignments/ianaiftype-mib/ianaiftype-mib, is describing what type of interface it is.
 
I would expect in a LAG configuration that the lag interface is ingressInterface resp. egressInterface and the member interfaces are ingressPhysicalInterface resp. egressPhysicalInterface.
 
I hope that helps.
 
Best wishes
Thomas
 


From: OPSAWG <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of [e-mail]
 Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 10:58 AM
 To: [e-mail]
 Cc: [e-mail]; '[e-mail]
 Subject: [OPSAWG] draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00



 



Be aware: This is an external email.



 
Hi authors,
 
At the request of Giuseppe, I had a read on draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00.
There are IPFIX IEs ingressInterface, egressInterface, ingressPhysicalInterface and egressPhysicalInterface, is there an IE indicating a LAG interface? 
 
Best Regards,
Xiao Min