Re: [IPFIX] rfc5103 lite

Andrew,

> I am seeing many NetFlow v9 exporters that
>
> * send IEs above 127

Of course. It's a 16-bit number space.


> (As long as they keep the the IPFIX datatype and semantics this is not 
> a problem)

Note that NFv9 and IPFIX are two different protocols, so there's no 
requirement for the IPFIX datatype and semantics to apply to the same 
field ID in NFv9.

- although in our case, we've endeavoured to do this as much as 
possible, assuming virtual equality between the two infomodels.


> * implement vendor specific IEs without a PEN.  (I know of hundreds of 
> vendor IEs above 32,767 defined by at least 5 vendors)

NFv9 doesn't have any vendor-specific IEs. It's a cisco protocol, and we 
might define any field to have any meaning at any time.

Also, there's no requirement for non-cisco vendors to use IDs > 32768. 
They could use any ID in the NFv9 range.

After discussing with Mike, I recently allocated some blocks of IDs 
within the NFv9 range for different vendors, in an effort to prevent us 
re-defining the same fields for different purposes.
It's only a pity that the vendors didn't approach me first.


Vendors, reach out to me if you're exporting your own NFv9 fields so we 
can avoid ID collisions.

P.
_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix