Subject: [ipfix] Re: FW: congestion awareness

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 10:10:01 -0800

> The language about recovery from loss must be omitted
> if this is the "no loss" case - there's really no middle
> ground - either the protocol supplies reliability or it
> tolerates loss.  If the former, it needs to be congestion-
> avoiding in the Internet.

completely agree.  and note i have moved this discussion
to the mailing list.

to quote comments from this ever-ongoing, and inappropriately
private, discussion with a vendor.

> in fact, isps today collect netflow data over the open internet.
> it is not some weird possibility, but fact.  we may not like it.
> we may think it inadvisable.  blah blah.  but providers DO it.
> 
> and they will continue to do it, whether we like it, advise it,
> ...  and, since they will transport over the open internet, it
> MUST be congestion friendly.
> 
> as the charter says, and for the reasons repeatedly discussed, it
> is *extremely* unlikely that anything will make it through the
> process which is not congestion friendly.

of course, when the data are not going over the internet, then you
may use whatever protocol you wish.  but, since it is not internet,
there is no need to discuss it in the ietf, is there?

congestion control will be mandatory to implement.  congestion
control will be mandatory to use when transportng over the
internet.  how you *automatically* detect that you are not
transporting on the internet, and *guaranty* congestion-friendly
transport when you are on the internet, is left as an exercise for
those wanting to take liberties.

as allison points out, the charter is fairly clear on this, but the
current drafts do not match it.  these will need to become charter,
and congestion control, compliant before these documents go to the
iesg or we are wasting a lot of people's time.

randy

--
Help        mailto:[email-masked] and say "help" in message body
Unsubscribe mailto:[email-masked] and say
"unsubscribe ipfix" in message body
Archive     http://ipfix.doit.wisc.edu/archive/

---

From: "Will Eatherton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 13:50:21 -0800

Rand and group,

I was hoping to educate myself in this thread on the reasons for requiring
that there be no option of using IPFIX without congestion control if an ISP
and vendor so desire.  At the bottom of the reasons was not concern in the
general case (I provided several scenarios and got no counter arguments) but
only concern for the cases of ISP/Vendor stupidity and case of router's
being compromised.  TCP is essentially a way to try and provider boundries
in those cases (though the boundry seems a bit superficial).

Intranet use of IPFIX is not to be covered in any way, and that should be
made very clear (also makes IPFIX irrelevant to a lot of folks).

With all this understood I will terminate my concern for this topic and
simply suggest that these points be well documented.

Will

> -----Original Message-----
> From: majordomo listserver [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf
> Of Randy Bush
> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 10:10 AM
> To: Allison Mankin
> Cc: Ganesh Sadasivan; Will Eatherton; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: [ipfix] Re: FW: congestion awareness
>
>

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 14:06:21 -0800

randy

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 10:13:27 -0500

> there is no need to discuss it in the ietf, is there?

	Forgive the dumb question, I haven't been an IETF'er
	for very long, but are all efforts in the IETF 
	only concered with the Internet. I know "Internet" is
	in the name, but for some reason I thought it had since
	become broader.

	I for one, did not realize that IPFIX was only concerned
	with the transport of IP flows over the Internet. I thought
	it was to report IP flows in any environment, private or
	public. Is that	not the case?

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 11:58:36 -0800 (PST)

> 	public. Is that	not the case?

The point being made was that the IETF sets standards for the Internet.
Having such a standard doesn't prevent anyone using non-standard
protocols (such as non-congestion-aware variants of IPFIX) anywhere.

What we really want for IPFIX is a congestion-aware protocol which
everyone will want to use everywhere!  So, what's your opinion on
reliable vs unreliable transport for IPFIX?  Would TCP be OK?
How about SCTP??

Cheers, Nevil

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Nevil Brownlee                   Director, Technology Development
   Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x8941      ITSS, The University of Auckland
   FAX: +64 9 373 7021      Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand