Dear Xiao, I agree that the description and the additional information does not provide information to distinguish between
ingressInterface, egressInterface and ingressPhysicalInterface, egressPhysicalInterface However from an implementation perspective I have observed that in all cases ingressInterface and egressInterface refer to logical and ingressPhysicalInterface and egressPhysicalInterface to physical interfaces. Where ingressInterfaceType and egressInterfaceType, which references to https://www.iana.org/assignments/ianaiftype-mib/ianaiftype-mib, is describing what type of interface it is. I would expect in a LAG configuration that the lag interface is ingressInterface resp. egressInterface and the member interfaces are ingressPhysicalInterface resp. egressPhysicalInterface. I hope that helps. Best wishes Thomas From: OPSAWG <[email protected]> On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 10:58 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; '[email protected] Subject: [OPSAWG] draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00 Be aware: This is an external email. Hi authors, At the request of Giuseppe, I had a read on draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00. There are IPFIX IEs ingressInterface, egressInterface, ingressPhysicalInterface and egressPhysicalInterface, is there an IE indicating a LAG interface? Best Regards, Xiao Min
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
