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

Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com Wed, 03 April 2024 03:40 UTC

Return-Path: <Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 778F3C15198F; Tue, 2 Apr 2024 20:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.396
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.396 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=swisscom.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w5w_xZy-j4KG; Tue, 2 Apr 2024 20:40:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.swisscom.com (mailout110.swisscom.com [138.188.166.110]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3447C14F5E8; Tue, 2 Apr 2024 20:40:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.swisscom.com; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 05:40:26 +0200
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=swisscom.com; s=iscm; t=1712115626; bh=MUh6GOahx8E7zNyYADufzimS7eVHxtyj2quvomoK22g=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To; b=XWsWUcqGdQfBEobgA+QDpJJuDPMx4Znx+wIC7l04C2W8PhbhTcn+eks2YahEuBoRS jc/PndGmzVddcCOrRjTcKwKQtqKqEqgdzJKDQJ2POKUrCm8JO2jOtYLBp2D693rxiK bPTpGXG8pbS8IOEScknFrm/qRwXwKrO3V6rmAWvph2DigH/sSYMfHfwfYLgKHbld6n 2Kcz4g6ds/16HKbb4n/Ze1Y30EonGExhQug/nPcmGvDI7nxw3ijiUPgneacG6kHPBt VzSsVDlH3T5vW6qVUvlKTfHvUe6ghzXlo+mwLkGjHYZs+17wVF96fS2kQKziMD5Zir owPkz3YOAGIEw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="----=_Part_2765226_1602053806.1712115626062"
X-Mailer: Totemo_TrustMail_(Notification)
From: Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com
To: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
CC: draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org
Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00
Thread-Index: AQHahNv00dMZhdnwDkapPV7ZDOcY97FU1fXwgADjGoCAAC6K4A==
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2024 03:40:23 +0000
Message-ID: <0218ACB2-996A-4BC2-9264-421FD2294FD0@swisscom.com>
References: 20240402165757283C0VlQz4t8NA5bu-YIjTsm@zte.com.cn, c06e68a8d693490791482af8c23d5e9e@swisscom.com, <20240403105349766H6VG2pF8d1gMupLhUrD1Z@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <20240403105349766H6VG2pF8d1gMupLhUrD1Z@zte.com.cn>
Accept-Language: en-US, de-CH
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Trustmail: processed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/JDSrAXHBV_4_0wti_3U6yoXOHts>
Subject: Re: [ippm] [OPSAWG] draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2024 03:40:36 -0000

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, xiao.min2@zte.com.cn wrote:



Be aware: This is an external email.



Correcting the email address ippm@ietf.org.


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

Original
From: Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com <Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com>
To: 肖敏10093570;draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark@ietf.org <draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark@ietf.org>;
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org <opsawg@ietf.org>;'ippm@ietf.org <'ippm@ietf.org>;
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 <opsawg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 10:58 AM
To: draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark@ietf.org
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org; 'ippm@ietf.org
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