[OPSAWG] draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00
xiao.min2@zte.com.cn Tue, 02 April 2024 08:58 UTC
Return-Path: <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89F2CC14F686; Tue, 2 Apr 2024 01:58:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 bfz7_ZTxsPb0; Tue, 2 Apr 2024 01:58:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (mxct.zte.com.cn [58.251.27.85]) (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 1056BC14F617; Tue, 2 Apr 2024 01:58:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxde.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.35.20.165]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxct.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4V81xg1q1yzPyQ; Tue, 2 Apr 2024 16:58:15 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.250.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxde.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4V81xd6VLHz77ypt; Tue, 2 Apr 2024 16:58:13 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.5.228.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4V81xQ6TZhz8XrRJ; Tue, 2 Apr 2024 16:58:02 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njy2app02.zte.com.cn ([10.40.13.116]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 4328vsQW061269; Tue, 2 Apr 2024 16:57:54 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from xiao.min2@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njb2app07[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Tue, 2 Apr 2024 16:57:57 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2024 16:57:57 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2aff660bc895ffffffffd10-c4283
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <20240402165757283C0VlQz4t8NA5bu-YIjTsm@zte.com.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
To: draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark@ietf.org
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org, 'ippm@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 4328vsQW061269
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 660BC8A5.000/4V81xg1q1yzPyQ
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/mtXBnhkRJoE_tPV6dcvXdRCCb8g>
Subject: [OPSAWG] draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsawg/>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2024 08:58:23 -0000
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
- [OPSAWG] draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00 xiao.min2
- Re: [OPSAWG] draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00 Thomas.Graf
- Re: [OPSAWG] draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00 xiao.min2
- Re: [OPSAWG] draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00 Thomas.Graf
- Re: [OPSAWG] draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00 xiao.min2
- Re: [OPSAWG] draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00 Giuseppe Fioccola
- Re: [OPSAWG] draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00 xiao.min2