Re: [IPFIX] proposal for IPFIX charter update
Juergen Quittek <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipfix |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAAFDA8B.22857%[email protected]> |
Dear all,
Below please find an update of the proposed IPFIX charter update.
It addresses all comments posted on the list.
The only major change is adding item 7 on link layer IEs.
Please send you comments on this version until next Monday, Oct 10.
Thanks,
Juergen
IP Flow Information Export (ipfix)
Description of Working Group
The IPFIX working group has specified the information model (to describe
IP flows) and the IPFIX protocol (to transfer IP flow data from IPFIX
exporters to collectors). Several implementers have already built
applications using the IPFIX protocol. As a result of a series of IPFIX
interoperability testing events the WG has produced guidelines for IPFIX
implementation and testing as well as recommendations for handling
special cases such as bidirectional flow reporting and reducing
redundancy in flow records.
The IPFIX WG has developed a mediation framework, that defines IPFIX
mediators for processing flow records for various purposes including
aggregation, anonymization, etc. For configuring IPFIX devices, a YANG
module has been developed.
1. Having a solid standardized base for IPFIX deployment and operation
and several existing implementations, the IPFIX WG will revisit the
IPFIX protocol specifications (RFC 5101) and the IPFIX information
element specification (RFC 5102) in order to advance them to draft
standard.
All following items 2.-7. will be in line with the revised versions
of the IPFIX protocol specifications and the IPFIX information model.
2. In order to provide guidelines to developers of new IPFIX information
elements and for better defining the process of registering new
information elements at IANA the IPFIX WG will create an information
element developers guideline document.
3. The export of IPFIX flow records from IPFIX mediators introduces a
set of potential issues at the protocol level, such as the loss of
information on the original exporter, loss of base time information,
loss of original options template information, etc. The IPFIX WG will
define common ways to deal with these issues, by specifying guidelines
for the use of the IPFIX protocol on IPFIX mediators.
4.In order to support the aggregation of flow records at IPFIX mediators
the IPFIX WG will define how to export aggregated flow information using
IPFIX. An aggregated flow is essentially an IPFIX flow representing
packets from multiple original Flows sharing some set of common properties.
5. The IPFIX WG will investigate the use of the IPFIX protocol for
exporting MIB objects, avoiding the need to define new IPFIX information
elements for existing management information base objects that are
already fully specified. This method requires the specification of new
template set and options template sets to allow the export of MIB objects
along with IPFIX information elements.
6. The IPFIX MIB module (RFC 5815) defined a way to register packet
selector functions at IANA. The WG agreed that another method would
be preferable that requires a minor change of RFC 5815. The IPFIX WG
will produce a new version of RFC 5815 with small modifications of
the IANA actions and DESCRIPTION clauses in the MIB modules.
7. Operational experiences showed that it would be useful to define
several new information elements for data link monitoring covering
frame size, type, sections of frames, and VLAN information. The IPFIX
WG will create a document defining these new information elements.
Oct 2011 Publish Internet-Draftt on guidelines for IE doctors
Oct 2011 Publish Internet-Draft on IPFIX use at mediators
Oct 2011 Publish Internet-Draft on intermediate aggregation
Oct 2011 Publish Internet-Draft on exporting MIB objects
Oct 2011 Publish Internet-Draft on data link IEs
Oct 2011 Publish Internet-Draft on revised IPFIX MIB
Dec 2011 Publish Internet-Draft revising RFC 5101
Dec 2011 Publish Internet-Draft revising RFC 5102
Apr 2012 Submit guidelines for IE doctors for publication as
Informational BCP RFC
Apr 2012 Submit IPFIX use at mediators for publication as
Standards track RFC
Apr 2012 Submit intermediate aggregation for publication as
Standards track RFC
Apr 2012 Submit data link IEs for publication as
Standards track RFC
Apr 2012 Submit revised RFC 5101 for publication as
Standards track RFC
Apr 2012 Submit revised IPFIX MIB for publications as
Standards track RFC
Apr 2012 Submit revised RFC 5102 for publication as
Standards track RFC
Sep 2012 Submit export of MIB objects for publication as
Standards track RFC
On 30.09.11 09:18, "Juergen Quittek" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Nevil,
>
>Thanks for the summary.
>I will post a new version of the charter at the weekend.
>
> Juergen
>
>On 30.09.11 00:10, "Nevil Brownlee" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>Hi all:
>>
>>Juergen posted the proposed new IPFIX charter at the end of August.
>>I've only seen one comment on it, which was "what happened to the
>>Link Layer IEs draft?"
>>
>>Looking at the minutes from our meeting in Quebec, we said
>>"We discussed whether this could be a 'trial run for the
>>IE Doctors,' or a WG item. We reached consensus for it as a WG item,
>>with the proviso that it will need views from Layer 2 domain experts,
>>e.g. IEEE 802.1."
>>
>>So Juergen, please add this as one more charter item.
>>
>>With that, I think we're ready to ask Dan to take it to IESG for
>>approval.
>>
>>Cheers, Nevil
>>
>>PS: it's really good to see lots of discussion on the IPFIX list
>> about improvements to 5101 et al :-)
>>
>>
>>On 29/09/11 2:40 AM, Benoit Claise wrote:
>>> IPFIX chairs,
>>>>
>>>> Hi Juergen,
>>>>
>>>> The IPFIX configuration data model is pending because of the IPFIX and
>>>> PSAMP MIBs. IMO, solving the SELECTOR MIB issue should be of highest
>>>> priority, and a solution be published before any other new draft.
>>> I agree.
>>>
>>> Btw, where is the new charter? ;-) There is always a tendency to delay
>>> work for which there is no deadlines...
>>>
>>> Regards, Benoit.
>>>> (I already see IPFIX config being outdated by RFC5101/5102bis before
>>>> it ever becomes RFC...)
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Gerhard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 29.08.2011 06:57, Juergen Quittek wrote:
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> At our session in Quebec we discussed candidates
>>>>> for new IPFIX work items. Based on this discussion,
>>>>> Nevil and I drafted an update of our charter that
>>>>> you can find below.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please have a look at it and send us your comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> IP Flow Information Export (ipfix)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Description of Working Group
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The IPFIX working group has specified the information model (to
>>>>>describe
>>>>> IP flows) and the IPFIX protocol (to transfer IP flow data from IPFIX
>>>>> exporters to collectors). Several implementers have already built
>>>>> applications using the IPFIX protocol. As a result of a series of
>>>>>IPFIX
>>>>> interoperability testing events the WG has produced guidelines for
>>>>>IPFIX
>>>>> implementation and testing as well as recommendations for handling
>>>>> special cases such as bidirectional flow reporting and reducing
>>>>> redundancy in flow records.
>>>>>
>>>>> The IPFIX WG has developed a mediation framework, that defines IPFIX
>>>>> mediators for processing flow records for various purposes including
>>>>> aggregation, anonymization, etc. For configuring IPFIX devices, a
>>>>>YANG
>>>>> module has been developed.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Having a solid standardized base for IPFIX deployment and
>>>>>operation
>>>>> and several exiting implementations, the IPFIX WG will revisit the
>>>>>IPFIX
>>>>> protocol specifications (RFC 5101) and the IPFIX information element
>>>>> specification (RFC 5102) in order to advance them to draft standard.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. For giving guidelines to developers of new IPFIX information
>>>>> elements and for better defining the process of registering new
>>>>> information elements at IANA the IPFIX WG will create an information
>>>>> element developers guideline document.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. The export of IPFIX flow records from IPFIX mediators introduces a
>>>>> set of potential issues at the protocol level, such as the loss of
>>>>> information on the original exporter, loss of base time information,
>>>>> loss of original options template information, etc. The IPFIX WG will
>>>>> define common ways to deal with these issues, by specifying
>>>>>guidelines
>>>>> for the use of the IPFIX protocol on IPFIX mediators.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. For supporting the aggregation of flow records at IPFIX mediators
>>>>> the IPFIX WG will define how to export aggregated flow information
>>>>>using
>>>>> IPFIX. An aggregated flow is essentially an IPFIX flow representing
>>>>> packets from multiple original Flows sharing some set of common
>>>>> properties.
>>>>>
>>>>> 5. The IPFIX WG will investigate the use of the IPFIX protocol for
>>>>> exporting
>>>>> MIB objects, avoiding the need to define new IPFIX information
>>>>>elements
>>>>> for existing management information base objects that are already
>>>>>fully
>>>>> specified. This method requires the specification of new template set
>>>>> and options template sets to allow the export of MIB objects along
>>>>> with IPFIX information elements.
>>>>>
>>>>> 6. The IPFIX MIB module (RFC 5815) defined a way to register packet
>>>>> selector functions at IANA. The WG agreed that another method would
>>>>> be preferable that requires a minor change of RFC 5815. The IPFIX WG
>>>>> will produce a new version of RFC 5815 with small modifications of
>>>>> the IANA actions and DESCRIPTION clauses in the the MIB modules.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oct 2011 Publish draft on guidelines for IE doctors
>>>>> Oct 2011 Publish draft on IPFIX use at mediators
>>>>> Oct 2011 Publish draft on intermediate aggregation
>>>>> Oct 2011 Publish draft on exporting MIB objects
>>>>> Oct 2011 Publish draft on data link IEs
>>>>> Dec 2011 Publish draft revising RFC 5101
>>>>> Dec 2011 Publish draft revising RFC 5102
>>>>>
>>>>> Apr 2012 Submit guidelines for IE doctors for publication as
>>>>> Informational BCP RFC
>>>>> Apr 2012 Submit draft on IPFIX use at mediators for publication as
>>>>> Standards track RFC
>>>>> Apr 2012 Submit draft on intermediate aggregation for publication as
>>>>> Standards track RFC
>>>>> Apr 2012 Submit draft on data link IEs for publication as Standards
>>>>> track RFC
>>>>> Apr 2012 Submit draft revising RFC 5101 for publication as Standards
>>>>> track RFC
>>>>> Apr 2012 Submit draft revising RFC 5102 for publication as Standards
>>>>> track RFC
>>>>> Sep 2012 Submit draft on exporting MIB objects for publication as
>>>>> Standards track RFC
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> IPFIX mailing list
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> IPFIX mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IPFIX mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
>>
>>
>>--
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Nevil Brownlee Computer Science Department | ITS
>> Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x88941 The University of Auckland
>> FAX: +64 9 373 7453 Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand
>>_______________________________________________
>>IPFIX mailing list
>>[email protected]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
>
>_______________________________________________
>IPFIX mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix