Hi Giuseppe,
Thank you for addressing my comments.
The added clarification text looks good to me.
Best Regards,
Xiao Min
Original
From: GiuseppeFioccola <giuseppe.fiocc...@huawei.com>
To: 肖敏10093570;thomas.g...@swisscom.com <thomas.g...@swisscom.com>;
Cc: draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-m...@ietf.org
<draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-m...@ietf.org>;opsawg@ietf.org
<opsawg@ietf.org>;i...@ietf.org <i...@ietf.org>;
Date: 2024年04月25日 00:33
Subject: RE: [OPSAWG] draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00
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: xiao.m...@zte.com.cn <xiao.m...@zte.com.cn>
Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2024 12:19 PM
To: thomas.g...@swisscom.com
Cc: draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-m...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
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: thomas.g...@swisscom.com <thomas.g...@swisscom.com>
To: 肖敏10093570;
Cc: draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-m...@ietf.org
<draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-m...@ietf.org>;opsawg@ietf.org
<opsawg@ietf.org>;i...@ietf.org <i...@ietf.org>;
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, xiao.m...@zte.com.cn wrote:
Be aware: This is an external email.
Correcting the email address i...@ietf.org.
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: thomas.g...@swisscom.com <thomas.g...@swisscom.com>
To: 肖敏10093570;draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-m...@ietf.org
<draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-m...@ietf.org>;
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org <opsawg@ietf.org>;'i...@ietf.org <'i...@ietf.org>;
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 <opsawg-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of xiao.m...@zte.com.cn
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 10:58 AM
To: draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-m...@ietf.org
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org; 'i...@ietf.org
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
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
