Re: [IPFIX] exporterIPv4Address and exporterIPv6Address question
Paul Aitken <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipfix |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Andrew, > So I wanted to recommend the following IEs to someone, but then I > wasn't sure if their usage quite fit with the description. > 130 exporterIPv4Address ipv4Address identifier current > > The IPv4 address used by the Exporting Process. This is used by the > Collector to identify the Exporter in cases where the identity of the > Exporter may have been obscured by the use of a proxy. > > 131 exporterIPv6Address ipv6Address identifier current > > The IPv6 address used by the Exporting Process. This is used by the > Collector to identify the Exporter in cases where the identity of the > Exporter may have been obscured by the use of a proxy. > > > The short question is does the "exporter" in question necessarily have > to be exporting IPFIX originally (or for that matter even be exporting)? Well these are IPFIX Information Elements in the IPFIX Information Model... If the other context adopts the IPFIX infomodel, then I don't see why not. > What if I poll a bunch of SNMP and export that information as IPFIX to > a collector? The polled devices are not necessarily exporters, but > this seems to be the most appropriate IE. I don't see a situation > where this would cause a problem, but maybe I am missing something. In this case it seems that you'd want to report the addresses of the polled devices, ie the source(s) of the SNMP information, rather than the exporter's address. Anyway the exporter's address will be visible to the collector (unless it's NAT'd). So perhaps "sourceIPv4Address" would be appropriate? And we need to improve the definition for cases where packets aren't being observed, eg the exporting device is sending reports or alarms, or is being SNMP polled. P. > SNMP is just one example. Could be any source other than IPFIX. > sFlow to PSAMP gateway, information gathered with WMI, etc. > > If this usage makes sense can we maybe add some text to the description? > > If not is there a better IE or should I propose one? > > Thanks, > -Andrew > > > _______________________________________________ > IPFIX mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix