Andrew,
per the discussion in the WG meeting this morning: It would be good if the draft could compare the proposed approach to what is already available with IPFIX and PSAMP (RFC5476). As part of that you could consider adding an IPFIX example as another “data plane option” to section 4 of the draft. Using your first example as reference, you could choose IPFIX fields (https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml) which match your definitions. Example (just took a quick glimpse at possible choices – there are other mappings which could apply as well): * “act” fields (forward, drop, bad TTL, …) -> forwardingStatus (u8) * “incoming port” -> ingressInterface (u32) * “timestamp” -> Export time (in IPFIX header) * “frame length” -> totalLengthIPv4 (u32) (example for v4 – assuming we export the entire packet) * “Internal Data 1” -> paddingOctets Using your example 1 – one possible IPFIX equivalent could look like: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+---+--- | Version Number | Length | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | Export Time (seconds) |IPFIX +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+Message | Sequence Number |Header +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | Observation Domain ID | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+---+-- | Set ID ( = Template ID) | Length |SetHdr +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+---+-- | ingressInterface | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | totalLengthIPv4 | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | fwdingStatus | paddingOctets | sectionExportedOctets | Record1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ipHeaderPacketSection (start) | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ... | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ipHeaderPacketSection (end) | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+---+-- | ingressInterface | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | totalLengthIPv4 | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | fwdingStatus | paddingOctets | sectionExportedOctets | Record2 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ipHeaderPacketSection (start) | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ... | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ipHeaderPacketSection (end) | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+---+-- Frank > -----Original Message----- > From: OPSAWG <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Gray, Andrew A > Sent: Mittwoch, 20. November 2019 12:11 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [OPSAWG] IETF 106 Discussion about draft-gray-sampled-streaming - > room moved > > After a couple bits of feedback, I have moved the session to be in the Padang > room at 9:00am to avoid conflict with the morning session. > > On 11/20/19, 11:59 AM, "OPSAWG on behalf of Gray, Andrew A" > <opsawg-<mailto:[email protected]%20on%20behalf%20of%[email protected]> > [email protected] on behalf of > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]%20on%20behalf%20of%[email protected]>> > wrote: > > Following the presentation of > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gray-<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gray-sampled-streaming/> > sampled-streaming/<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gray-sampled-streaming/> > during the session, questions and comments were cut off > due to time, and there was the suggestion to make a separate session for > ongoing conversation. > > I reserved the Butterworth room on Thursday at 10am for this, and am very > interested in hearing from people on this draft. > > Thanks > > > E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: > The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended > solely > for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged > information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or if this > message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the > sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message and any attachments. If > you > are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, > distribution, copying, or storage of this message or any attachment is > strictly > prohibited. > > > E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: > The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely > for > the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged > information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or if this > message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the > sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message and any attachments. If > you > are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, > distribution, copying, or storage of this message or any attachment is > strictly > prohibited. > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
