Re: [IPFIX] RFC 6728 IETF IPFIX Yang Discussion
Gerhard Muenz <[email protected]> Sat, 13 Jan 2018 10:43:32 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipfix |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============5413905259376541354==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------184F48FA7CC1D6397CB01FC2"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------184F48FA7CC1D6397CB01FC2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Marta, all,
A few additional thoughts regarding your questions:
1) I would not expect that not following current naming convention
hinders implementation of RFC 6728. On the other hand, if we change just
the names of the identifiers, we lose interoperability with older
implementations that may exist.
2) I think that it is reasonable that destinationIPAddress is mandatory
because network management systems should be able to query the IP
address to which an Exporting Process sends data. As Paul stated, RFC
6728 does not say how the destination IP address is set.
3) SCTP is still a mandatory transport for a compliant implementation of
an IPFIX device, not a feature. See:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7011#section-10.1
Best regards,
Gerhard
On 10.01.2018 08:33, Benoit Claise wrote:
> Hi,
>>
>> Marta, Benoit,
>>
>>
>> 1. Are there efforts to update other RFCs to meet the latest YANG
>> best practices?
>>
> Yes. Ex: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis/
> The goal is to specify NMDA-compliant
> (draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-09
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores/>)
> YANG modules
>>
>>
>> 2. Since the IPFIX WG closed, there has been little ongoing IPFIX
>> work in the IETF. Is there a specific need to update RFC 6728 rather
>> than just recognising it as a product of it's time?
>>
> This type of feedback should come from implementation experience.
>
> Regards, Benoit
>>
>> Note that it's > 5 years old.
>>
>>
>> Also see @PJ inline:
>>
>>
>> On 09/01/2018 16:01, Benoit Claise wrote:
>>
>> Hi Marta,
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am reaching out to the IETF IPFIX mailing list on some
>> issues I have run into with respect to RFC 6728
>> Configuration Data Model for the IP Flow Information Export
>> (IPFIX) and Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Protocols
>>
>> 1. RFC 6728 doesnt meet the latest Yang Best Practices
>> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-15#section-4.3.1
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dnetmod-2Drfc6087bis-2D15-23section-2D4.3.1&d=DwMD-g&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=f8F8yzrqBTw6EPtR1rbibO_VFIc-cdnjIJ9he_qu7xs&m=0c5ATjuT0-4IlDzLYM9h_RbPjCBQUv_6aExRL_fl-5M&s=Hhi7V6njCFNBbSsjC6sPgNfVu5DA8iQzdzsnA_iQBzQ&e=>).
>> Leaf identifiers are camel case (e.g., destinationAddress
>> instead of destination-address). Are there any ongoing
>> efforts to update RFC 6728 to meet the latest best practices?
>>
>> Not as far as I know.
>>
>> Regards, Benoit
>>
>> 2.
>>
>> Identifiers SHOULD follow a consistent naming pattern
>> throughout the
>>
>> module. Only lower-case letters, numbers, and dashes
>> SHOULD be used
>>
>> in identifier names. Upper-case characters and the underscore
>>
>> character MAY be used if the identifier represents a
>> well-known value
>>
>> that uses these characters.
>>
>> Identifiers SHOULD include complete words and/or
>> well-known acronyms
>>
>> or abbreviations. Child nodes within a container or list
>> SHOULD NOT
>>
>> replicate the parent identifier. YANG identifiers are
>> hierarchical
>>
>> and are only meant to be unique within the the set of
>> sibling nodes
>>
>> defined in the same module namespace.
>>
>> It is permissible to use common identifiers such as "name"
>> or "id" in
>>
>> data definition statements, especially if these data nodes
>> share a
>>
>> common data type.
>>
>> Identifiers SHOULD NOT carry any special semantics that
>> identify data
>>
>> modelling properties. Only YANG statements and YANG extension
>>
>> statements are designed to convey machine readable data
>> modelling
>>
>> properties. For example, naming an object "config" or
>> "state" does
>>
>> not change whether it is configuration data or state
>> data. Only
>>
>> defined YANG statements or YANG extension statements can
>> be used to
>>
>> assign semantics in a machine readable format in YANG.
>>
>> 3. I generated the RFC 6728 yang tree (see attached). The
>> tcp and udp exporting processes support a
>> destinationIPAddress (line 400, 455) which is mandatory.
>> The type is inet:ip-address.
>>
>> 1. A collector may be doing load balancing. Rather than
>> managing ip-addresses, the collector may be using DNS
>> (an exporter could resolve from the domain name where
>> the collector is located).
>>
>>
>> @PJ: Load balancing and DNS are independent. Load balancing IPFIX is
>> probably a bad idea since templates need to be available on all
>> collectors, and out of step sequence numbers in the data records
>> would cause spurious reports of lost data. If DNS is used to obtain
>> the collector's address, arguably it should be a one-time lookup
>> rather than incurring a DNS lookup per export packet.
>>
>>
>> 4.
>>
>> 1.
>> 2. The collector address may be learnt via other methods
>> (e.g., through DHCP options)
>> 3. A choice statement to select what method to use seems
>> more appropriate than what is presently in RFC 6728.
>> For example (use some shorthand)
>>
>> choice destination-method{
>>
>> case destination-address{
>>
>> leaf destination-address// rw with type inet:host
>>
>> }
>>
>> case dhcp-acquired-address{
>>
>> container dcp-acquired-address{
>>
>> leaf destination-ip-address inet-address //ro
>>
>> }
>>
>> }
>>
>> However I cant augment to ietf-ipfix because
>> destinationIPAddress is mandatory. Can the group suggest
>> methods to (a) change the destinationIPAddress type and (b)
>> allow a choice?
>>
>>
>> @PJ: The selection could also be done out of band so the exporter
>> need not know how the address is determined. eg a configuration
>> system could determine the address by any of these methods or
>> otherwise, and impose that address using the current model.
>>
>> 5. RFC 6728 mandates SCTP transport. I understand the logic
>> behind this (IETF prefers use of SCTP). There are
>> situations where sctp is unnecessary and not supported
>> (e.g., point to point connection). During netconf
>> negotiations you can announce your feature set (currently
>> sctptransport is not a feature). Is there ongoing work
>> in updating RFC 6728 to include sctptransport as a
>> feature (so that the device can announce whether or not
>> it supports sctptransport)?
>>
>>
>> @PJ Same answer as point (2) above, ie is this necessary and useful?
>>
>> P.
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IPFIX mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
--------------184F48FA7CC1D6397CB01FC2
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
Marta, all,<br>
<br>
A few additional thoughts regarding your questions:<br>
<br>
1) I would not expect that not following current naming convention
hinders implementation of RFC 6728. On the other hand, if we change
just the names of the identifiers, we lose interoperability with
older implementations that may exist.<br>
<br>
2) I think that it is reasonable that destinationIPAddress is
mandatory because network management systems should be able to query
the IP address to which an Exporting Process sends data. As Paul
stated, RFC 6728 does not say how the destination IP address is set.<br>
<br>
3) SCTP is still a mandatory transport for a compliant
implementation of an IPFIX device, not a feature. See:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7011#section-10.1">https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7011#section-10.1</a><br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Gerhard<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10.01.2018 08:33, Benoit Claise
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:[email protected]">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi,<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:[email protected]">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Courier New \;color\:black";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:29032718;
mso-list-template-ids:1233440172;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-start-at:2;
mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:872497269;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1513362094 67698705 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-text:"%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l2
{mso-list-id:1164783985;
mso-list-template-ids:-776306644;}
@list l2:level1
{mso-level-start-at:3;
mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l2:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:72.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l3
{mso-list-id:1771582518;
mso-list-template-ids:1900871068;}
@list l4
{mso-list-id:1854878191;
mso-list-template-ids:-1429025646;}
@list l4:level1
{mso-level-start-at:3;
mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l5
{mso-list-id:1969050356;
mso-list-template-ids:1347075240;}
@list l5:level1
{mso-level-start-at:4;
mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l6
{mso-list-id:2054763915;
mso-list-template-ids:-910232920;}
@list l6:level1
{mso-level-start-at:5;
mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l7
{mso-list-id:2115901474;
mso-list-template-ids:-64084510;}
@list l7:level1
{mso-level-start-at:4;
mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l7:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:72.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Marta, Benoit,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
1. Are there efforts to update other RFCs to meet the
latest YANG best practices?<br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes. Ex: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis/"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis/</a><br>
The goal is to specify NMDA-compliant (<a
href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores/"
moz-do-not-send="true">draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-09</a>)
YANG modules<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:[email protected]">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <br>
2. Since the IPFIX WG closed, there has been little
ongoing IPFIX work in the IETF. Is there a specific need
to update RFC 6728 rather than just recognising it as a
product of it's time? </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
This type of feedback should come from implementation experience.<br>
<br>
Regards, Benoit<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:[email protected]">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Note that it's > 5 years old.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
Also see @PJ inline:<br>
<br>
<br>
On 09/01/2018 16:01, Benoit Claise wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Marta,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am reaching out to the IETF IPFIX
mailing list on some issues I have run into with
respect to RFC 6728 Configuration Data Model for the
IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) and Packet
Sampling (PSAMP) Protocols<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0cm" start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3">RFC
6728 doesnt meet the latest Yang Best Practices (<a
href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dnetmod-2Drfc6087bis-2D15-23section-2D4.3.1&d=DwMD-g&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=f8F8yzrqBTw6EPtR1rbibO_VFIc-cdnjIJ9he_qu7xs&m=0c5ATjuT0-4IlDzLYM9h_RbPjCBQUv_6aExRL_fl-5M&s=Hhi7V6njCFNBbSsjC6sPgNfVu5DA8iQzdzsnA_iQBzQ&e="
moz-do-not-send="true">https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-15#section-4.3.1</a>).
Leaf identifiers are camel case (e.g.,
destinationAddress instead of destination-address).
Are there any ongoing efforts to update RFC 6728 to
meet the latest best practices?<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Not as far as I know.<br>
<br>
Regards, Benoit<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<ol style="margin-top:0cm" start="2" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3"><o:p> </o:p></li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New ;color:black",serif"> Identifiers SHOULD
follow a consistent naming pattern throughout the</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New ;color:black",serif"> module. Only
lower-case letters, numbers, and dashes SHOULD be
used</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New ;color:black",serif"> in identifier
names. Upper-case characters and the underscore</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New ;color:black",serif"> character MAY be
used if the identifier represents a well-known value</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New ;color:black",serif"> that uses these
characters.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New ;color:black",serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New ;color:black",serif"> Identifiers SHOULD
include complete words and/or well-known acronyms</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New ;color:black",serif"> or abbreviations.
Child nodes within a container or list SHOULD NOT</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New ;color:black",serif"> replicate the
parent identifier. YANG identifiers are
hierarchical</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New ;color:black",serif"> and are only meant
to be unique within the the set of sibling nodes</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New ;color:black",serif"> defined in the same
module namespace.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New ;color:black",serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New ;color:black",serif"> It is permissible
to use common identifiers such as "name" or "id" in</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New ;color:black",serif"> data definition
statements, especially if these data nodes share a</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New ;color:black",serif"> common data type.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New ;color:black",serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New ;color:black",serif"> Identifiers SHOULD
NOT carry any special semantics that identify data</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New ;color:black",serif"> modelling
properties. Only YANG statements and YANG extension</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New ;color:black",serif"> statements are
designed to convey machine readable data modelling</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New ;color:black",serif"> properties. For
example, naming an object "config" or "state" does</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New ;color:black",serif"> not change whether
it is configuration data or state data. Only</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New ;color:black",serif"> defined YANG
statements or YANG extension statements can be used
to</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New ;color:black",serif"> assign semantics in
a machine readable format in YANG.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0cm" start="3" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3">I
generated the RFC 6728 yang tree (see attached).
The tcp and udp exporting processes support a
destinationIPAddress (line 400, 455) which is
mandatory. The type is inet:ip-address. <o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>
<ol style="margin-top:0cm" start="3" type="1">
<ol style="margin-top:0cm" start="1" type="a">
<li class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l1 level2 lfo3">A
collector may be doing load balancing. Rather
than managing ip-addresses, the collector may be
using DNS (an exporter could resolve from the
domain name where the collector is located). <o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>
</ol>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
@PJ: Load balancing and DNS are independent. Load
balancing IPFIX is probably a bad idea since templates
need to be available on all collectors, and out of step
sequence numbers in the data records would cause spurious
reports of lost data. If DNS is used to obtain the
collector's address, arguably it should be a one-time
lookup rather than incurring a DNS lookup per export
packet.<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<ol style="margin-top:0cm" start="4" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3"><o:p> </o:p></li>
</ol>
<ol style="margin-top:0cm" start="4" type="1">
<ol style="margin-top:0cm" start="1" type="a">
<li class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l1 level2 lfo3"><o:p> </o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l1 level2 lfo3">The
collector address may be learnt via other methods
(e.g., through DHCP options)<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l1 level2 lfo3">A
choice statement to select what method to use
seems more appropriate than what is presently in
RFC 6728. For example (use some shorthand)<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:72.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:72.0pt">choice
destination-method{<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:72.0pt">
case destination-address{<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:72.0pt">
leaf destination-address// rw with type inet:host <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:72.0pt">
}<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:72.0pt">
case dhcp-acquired-address{<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:72.0pt">
container dcp-acquired-address{<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:72.0pt">
leaf destination-ip-address inet-address //ro<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:72.0pt">
}<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:72.0pt">}<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
However I cant augment to ietf-ipfix because
destinationIPAddress is mandatory. Can the group
suggest methods to (a) change the destinationIPAddress
type and (b) allow a choice?<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
@PJ: The selection could also be done out of band so the
exporter need not know how the address is determined. eg a
configuration system could determine the address by any of
these methods or otherwise, and impose that address using
the current model.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<ol style="margin-top:0cm" start="5" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3">RFC
6728 mandates SCTP transport. I understand the
logic behind this (IETF prefers use of SCTP). There
are situations where sctp is unnecessary and not
supported (e.g., point to point connection). During
netconf negotiations you can announce your feature
set (currently sctptransport is not a feature). Is
there ongoing work in updating RFC 6728 to include
sctptransport as a feature (so that the device can
announce whether or not it supports sctptransport)?<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
@PJ Same answer as point (2) above, ie is this necessary
and useful?<br>
<br>
P.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------184F48FA7CC1D6397CB01FC2--
--===============5413905259376541354==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
--===============5413905259376541354==--