[IPFIX] No active/inactive timeout definitions in any IPFIX RFCs? Idle versus inactive terminology? (part of draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-09 review)
Benoit Claise <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipfix |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Dear all,
Reading draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-09.txt, I realized that this draft
defines two new terms: Active Timeout and Inactive Timeout.
I was thinking: surely, we have defined those terms already in some
IPFIX RFCs.
Actually, I was unable to find any references.... Have I overlooked
something?
The only pointers I could find are in RFC5102
5.11.1. flowActiveTimeout
Description:
The number of seconds after which an active Flow is timed out
anyway, even if there is still a continuous flow of packets.
Abstract Data Type: unsigned16
ElementId: 36
Status: current
Units: seconds
5.11.2. flowIdleTimeout
Description:
A Flow is considered to be timed out if no packets belonging to
the Flow have been observed for the number of seconds specified by
this field.
Abstract Data Type: unsigned16
ElementId: 37
Status: current
Units: seconds
5.11.3. flowEndReason
Description:
The reason for Flow termination. The range of values includes the
following:
0x01: idle timeout
The Flow was terminated because it was considered to be
idle.
0x02: active timeout
The Flow was terminated for reporting purposes while it was
still active, for example, after the maximum lifetime of
unreported Flows was reached.
...
Here is one issue.
Some documents refer to inactive timeout
RFC5472,
ipfixMeteringProcessCacheInactiveTimeout in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipfix-rfc5815bis-03
inactiveTimeout in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model-10
While some others refer to idle timeout
RFC 5102,
draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-09
Any proposal to fix this problem?
Regards, Benoit (OPS A.D.)
_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix