Re: [IPFIX] IPFIX length fields
Chris Inacio <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipfix |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
I vote to keep IPaddress as a semantic type. Because I can do things like masking / subnetting, etc. when it is an IPAddress - but I don't think about doing that with an identifier. We are currently implementing stuff the depends on IP (v4/v6) as a semantic meaning. I assume I can do pretty much *nothing* intelligent operationally, masking, flags, ranges, summation, etc. with identifier. Only key matching. But I know I can do more with an IP address. Chris On Mar 1, 2012, at 6:07 PM, Paul Aitken wrote: > Dear all, > > Reviewing IANA's IPFIX field list, we noticed that most of the *length fields have no semantics. > > However, mplsTopLabelPrefixLength has semantics of "identifier", while ethernetHeaderLength, ethernetPayloadLength, ethernetTotalLength have semantics of "identifier". > > We propose that these all be changed to no semantics. > > Or better, that all lengths be changed to semantics of "quantity", since RFC5102 says, > 3.2.1. quantity > > A quantity value represents a discrete measured value pertaining to > the record. This is distinguished from counters that represent an > ongoing measured value whose "odometer" reading is captured as part > of a given record. > If no semantic qualifier is given, the > Information Elements that have an integral data type should behave as > a quantity. > > > Feedback? > > Thanks, > Paul and Nick > <ATT00001.c> _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix