Re: comments on draft-ietf-itrace-03
Mikael Olsson <[email protected]> Mon, 10 Feb 2003 22:41:06 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.itrace |
|---|---|
| Organization | Clavister AB |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Tom Taylor wrote: > > It wasn't processing performance I was worried about: it was establishing the > applicable key correctly. The key could change between capture and processing. > Ouch, good point. However, let's turn the argument around a bit: While "time captured" is indeed what we want, do routers, generally speaking, know the exact time when a packet _arrived_? Wouldn't people just end up putting "time of processing" in the time field? If so, why not just specify that the timestamp should _be_ time of processing? -- Mikael Olsson, Clavister AB Storgatan 12, Box 393, SE-891 28 ÖRNSKÖLDSVIK, Sweden Phone: +46 (0)660 29 92 00 Mobile: +46 (0)70 26 222 05 Fax: +46 (0)660 122 50 WWW: http://www.clavister.com