Re: [IPFIX] Export of long lived flow information

Paul Aitken <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.ipfix
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Gerhard,

I agree with your definitions. Thanks for clarifying.

So what's the next step?

     * Update the IANA definitions?
     * Add clarifications to the WG documents?


Do we need a short presentation at the upcoming WG meeting?

P.


On 30/10/12 11:51, Gerhard Muenz wrote:
> Paul,
>
> On 26.10.2012 20:20, Paul Aitken wrote:
>> Andrew, Gerhard,
>>
>>>> My understanding is that both, deltaCounts and totalCounts contain 
>>>> the number of packets or octets observed in the indicated time 
>>>> interval. So, for identical flowStart* and flowEnd* timestamps, the 
>>>> values are the same.
>>> This is my understanding as well.
>>
>> There has to be a difference between delta and total counts, else we
>> wouldn't have both of them!
>>
>> Suppose we have a permanent cache, so the cache entries never expire.
>>
>> For a new flow starting at t0 with a first export at t1, the
>> timestamps, delta, and total counts are the same.
>>
>> However with the second export at t2, the total and delta counts are
>> different although their timestamps match (they'll both say, "t0 to
>> t2").
>
> No, this would contradict the new definition of flowStart* we are just 
> discussing.
> If delta counts are exported for the interval (t1,t2), then flowStart* 
> is t1.
> If delta counts are exported for the interval (t0,t2), then flowStart* 
> is t0.
> If total counts are exported, flowStart is always t0.
> These statements hold regardless of which type of cache is used by the 
> Metering Process. In general, the information model does not care 
> about how the cache is implemented. The exported information just must 
> follow the IE definition.
>
>>
>> With the traditional (non-permanent) cache, the entry would probably
>> have been removed at t1 and re-created on a subsequent packet, so at
>> t2 the delta and total counts would both be equal. However it'd be
>> incorrect to report the total count, because that's defined as the
>> total number of packets or bytes ..."since the Metering Process
>> (re-)initialization for this Observation Point".
>
> You must not export total counters in this case because you reset 
> counters before re-initialization of the Metering Process.
>
> Thanks,
> Gerhard
>
>>
>>
>>>> However, the description of totalCounts says that you report the 
>>>> number of packets or octets observed for this Flow since 
>>>> re-initialization. So, you must never reset the counter for this 
>>>> Flow, even after observing a FIN or RST.
>>>> If you reset flow counters, or if you remove Flows from your Cache, 
>>>> you cannot use totalCounts any more unless you re-initialize the 
>>>> Metering Process (e.g. after flushing the entire permanent Cache).
>>>
>>> I can try some tests later, but from what I have seen (and been 
>>> told) many totals being exported are in fact just a delta sent once 
>>> at the end of the flow.  If a later flow had the same IPs, protocol, 
>>> and ports as an earlier flow I'm pretty sure a new start time will 
>>> be sent rather than the the first time that flow was seen since 
>>> reinitializing the metering process.
>>
>> So the MP uses a traditional (non-permanent) cache. In RFC 6728
>> terms, a TimeoutCache or NaturalCache rather than a PermanentCache.
>>
>>
>>> Or to put it an other way I think deltas are being sent, but called 
>>> totals by the implementation because it seemed like the right thing 
>>> to do for a value being sent once at the end of the flow.
>>
>> The collector could be aggregating deltas to keep running totals.
>>
>>
>>> I suspect that totals reporting on the export process (eg 
>>> exportedOctetTotalCount, exportedMessageTotalCount) are, however, 
>>> reported with a start time that is only reset on reinitialization.
>>
>> Definitely, because these are defined as "The total number of X that
>> the Exporting Process has sent since the Exporting Process
>> (re-)initialization ...".
>>
>> P.

_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.