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

[Giuseppe Fioccola <[e-mail]>]

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]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
To: 肖敏10093570;
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:


Be aware: This is an external email.



Correcting the email address [e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
To: 肖敏10093570;[e-mail] <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 10:58 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[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