Hi Xiao, All, We have just uploaded the new revision of draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark and we added some text to clarify the point you raised about the LAG interface.
Regards, Giuseppe From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2024 12:19 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00 Got it. Thank you Thomas! If some text can be added to clarify this usage of ingressInterface/egressInterface and ingressPhysicalInterface/egressPhysicalInterface, that would help the implementer. Cheers, Xiao Min Original From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: 肖敏10093570; Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>;[email protected] <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>;[email protected] <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Date: 2024年04月03日 11:41 Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00 Dear Xiao, Correct. Obviously this will be exported per flow and the interface entities have to be key fields as the flow entities as well. Best wishes Thomas On 3 Apr 2024, at 04:54, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> wrote: Be aware: This is an external email. Correcting the email address [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. Hi Thomas, If I understand you correctly, you mean the IE exporter can use ingressInterface/egressInterface to indicate LAG port and ingressPhysicalInterface/egressPhysicalInterface to indicate LAG member port, so the receiver can deduce the implicit meanings of them if they have different values, is that right? Cheers, Xiao Min From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: 肖敏10093570;[email protected] <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>;'[email protected] <'[email protected]>; Date: 2024年04月02日 19:32 Subject: RE: [OPSAWG] draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00 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]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 10:58 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[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
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
