Subject: [ipfix-req] IPFIX Requirement draft status - section 5.8

From: "Reinaldo Penno" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 05:34:17 -0700

I wonder if requirement 5.8 is relevant at all when choosing the IPfix
protocol...More generally should metering requirements matter when choosing
the IPfix protocol? 

Let's suppose we choose lfap as the protocol. Are they going to give me the
meter also? I think not...Well, even if they give it to me I'll probably
never use it since is platform dependent. 

Taking this one step further to clarify the analogy. For example, let's
suppose we choose Diameter as the Ipfix protocol. Well, clearly diameter
does not have a meter built into it, and Diameter is a candidate.

5.8.  Ignore Port Copy

   The metering process MAY be able to ignore packets which are
   generated by a port copy function acting at the device where the
   observation point of a flow is located.

---

From: "Peter Ludemann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 11:00:31 -0700

IPFIX Requirement draft status - section 5.8In our "advocacy" document, we
stated that all of section 5 is not applicable, except to note that we
support all the necessary data types and can export any of the proposed
record structures.

- peter
  -----Original Message-----
  From: majordomo listserver [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf
Of Reinaldo Penno
  Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:34 AM
  To: req
  Cc: [email-masked]
  Subject: [ipfix-req] IPFIX Requirement draft status - section 5.8

  Let's suppose we choose lfap as the protocol. Are they going to give me
the meter also? I think not...Well, even if they give it to me I'll probably
never use it since is platform dependent.

  5.8.  Ignore Port Copy