Re: [IPFIX] Promotion of Enterprise-Specific IEs to IANA IEs

Benoit,

> 4. If a single router from a specific vendor sends that URI, the 
> collector receives all the mappings.
>
> The point 4 is my primary argument against "IE equivalence options 
> template".
> - "IE equivalence options template" must be sent from _all _the 
> exporters (because different exporters support different sets of IEs) 
> for the collector to rely on the mechanism. And we know there are 
> different platforms, with different software versions, even from a 
> single vendor.

That's not quite correct.

If each box must send it's own unique equivalence option, then each box 
would require a unique URI for the collector to obtain the correct 
mapping for that device alone.

Since you clearly see that a single URI is sufficient for all devices 
from a vendor, then a single option template from a single device is 
also sufficient for all devices from a vendor, since the option would 
contain the exact same information as the URI.


> - Sending the URI only needs to be sent from a single exporter (from 
> that vendor) and the collector gets all the required information.

Similarly for the equivalence option.

Consider the mechanism versus the content: there are two mechanisms 
(option versus URI), while the underlying content is the same.


> Note that the collector could even be hard coded the URI in the 
> collector, as this should not change.

Consider how the URI mechanism would handle versioning. ie, an 
enterprise-specific IE changes from A to B to C. If the latest URI says 
A is B and B is C (as it must), then older EPs from before the B to C 
change, which truly do export B, may not be interpreted correctly.

Whereas with the equivalence option mechanism, an older device could 
export the "A to B" equivalence without the "B to C" equivalence.

P.

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