The SIP CLF WG has just recently rejected IPFIX for it being binary and chosen indexed ASCII instead for their format. Their reasoning (after a long struggle) is probably educating:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-clf/current/msg00364.html I don't think that IPFIX is a good solution *in the syslog context*. It is very far from what people expect. Other than that, I'd probably need to re-iterate the arguments made on the SIP CLF mailing list, so it probably is better to refer to their archive ;) Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Jeroen Massar > Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 11:35 AM > To: Heinbockel, Bill > Cc: Sam Johnston; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Syslog] draft-cloud-log-00 / CEE - why not IPFIX? > > On 2011-02-16 06:21, Heinbockel, Bill wrote: > > From what I understand, IPFIX is for expression of IP flows from > network sensing > > devices. > > For a short bit forget about the history of IPFIX, it indeed comes from > NetFlow, and thus is used quite in a network centric way, but > effectively it is a structured streaming data format. > > > Could you please explain how IPFIX is relevant to event and cloud > logging data? > > I understand how CEE and IPFIX may overlap for describing networking > events, but > > it is unclear to me how IPFIX could handle things like Windows Event > Logs and > > RHEL audit logs. > > There are two parts to IPFIX: Templates + Data > > The template describes how the data looks like, for instance, lets take > an Apache CLF log entry: > > 66.249.66.174 - - [16/Feb/2011:10:48:11 +0100] "GET /robots.txt > HTTP/1.1" 200 2629 "-" "Googlebot-Image/0" > > We can make an IPFIX template for that > > [ > {4, IPv4_SRC }, > {4, TIMESTAMP}, > {4, HTTP_METHOD}, > {v, URL}, > {v, HTTP_PROTOCOL}, > {2, HTTP_RESULT}, > {8, OCTETS}, > {v, HTTP_REFER}, > {v, HTTP_USERAGENT}, > ] > > The 'v' markers indicate variable fieldlengths, the others indicates > the > number of bytes such a field takes. The data is then just encoded in > the > above format, presto. > > The above is a simple example, one can also have repeating lists and of > course you could make a variable template which just includes the > fields > that you actually want to look at or you could already do some > aggregation and add other fields. Templates are only sent every now and > then, as they should not change. The data is the important bit. > > The fieldnames are actually numbers in the data, thus very compact, and > are mapped to descriptions, data types etc, per a nice XML file > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xml (or .xhtml or .txt for > a more human readable version ;) for the official IANA list and with > the > help of Enterprise IDs any others can easily be added. > > The big advantage is that you can more or less do static templates if > you want and you only need one single parser on the collector side, > thus > one does not have to create another parser and collector again for > decoding other protocols, just one, the IPFIX one, and you can optimize > that really well for all kinds of scenarios. > > Greets, > Jeroen > _______________________________________________ > Syslog mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
