RE: [ippm] traceroute as WG work item? IPFIX traceroute records

["STEPHAN Emile RD-CORE-LAN" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Juergen,

My thinking is that we might use IPFIX to export the traceroute results.


What about using 2 templates: one for the measure and another one for results?
       
 0                   1                   2                   3  
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1  
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  
|         FlowSet ID = 0        |       Length = xx bytes       |  
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  
|               256             |       Field Length = 4        |  
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|    FlowID (e.g. measure ID)   |       Field Length = 4        |  
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-| 
|    sourceIPv4Address          |      Field Length = 4         | Src 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
|  destinationIPv4Address       |        Field Length = 4       | Dst
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+    

0                   1                   2                   3  
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1  
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  
|         FlowSet ID = 0        |       Length = xx bytes       |  
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  
|               257             |       Field Length = 4        |  
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
|    FlowID (e.g. measure ID)   |       Field Length = 4        |  
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
|    SampleID                   |       Field Length = 4        |  
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Src UDP 
|   flowStartMicroSeconds       |      Field Length =  8        | pkts time
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
|   flowEndDeltaUSeconds        |      Field Length =  4        | Troute RTT
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
|    destinationIPv4Address     |        Field Length = 4       | Hop Addr 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+    


This is compact and is very close to what describes Guido draft (draft-pohl-perpktinfo-02.txt). 

We need only to define a new Field Type named 'SampleID' (named PacketID in Guido document).                 

Regards
Emile

-----Message d'origine-----
De : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Juergen Quittek
Envoyé : mardi 15 mars 2005 12:09
À : [e-mail]
Objet : Re: [ippm] traceroute as WG work item?

The I-D is still missing a data model, because there is no
consensus yet on the mailing list about whether to use an
XML-based data model or a more compact one.
Please find some pro and con arguments at
http://people.internet2.edu/~matt/IPPM/Meetings/ietf62/ippm-2005-03-07-traceroute.pdf

Thanks,

    Juergen

--On 15.03.2005 11:15 +0100 Juergen Quittek wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Unfortunately, there was no discussion on traceroute storage during
> our last meeting. Therefore I bring this issue to the mailing list.
>
> There is an I-D describing an information model for traceroute records:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-niccolini-ippm-storetraceroutes-00.txt
>
> This work was initiated by the development of a database for traffic
> measurement tools and traces, see  http://www.ist-mome.org/database/
>
> Currently, there is no standard way of exchanging traceroute
> measurements except for the DISMAN-TRACEROUTE-MIB module (RFC2925).
> But this can only be used for transferring measurement data from an
> SNMP agent to its manager(s).  It is not useful for exchange between
> traffic measurement tools.
>
> A standardized record format for traceroute measurements would be
> very useful for building tools, databases and other applications
> that handle traceroute measurements and need to exchange them.
>
> Therefore I propose that this becomes an IPPM WG work item.
> Any comment, pro or con, is very welcome.
>
> Thanks,
>
>     Juergen
> --
> Juergen Quittek        [e-mail]       Tel: [phone]
> NEC Europe Ltd.,       Network Laboratories        Fax: [phone]
> Kurfuersten-Anlage 36, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany   http://www.netlab.nec.de
>
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm



_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
[e-mail] 
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
[e-mail] 
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm