Subject: [ipfix-eval] Discussion of Candidate Protocols

From: Jeff Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 16:04:13 -0700

Hi,

   In the interest of spurring discussion around the
different candidate protocols, I've written my
own brief summary of the candidates, with the
expected bias (since I'm the IPDR advocate).

    - IPDR  - much richer and more formal extensibility model,
        leveraging industry standard XML-Schema.
        Compactness as good as other candidates (after
        negotiation of "templates"/"descriptors"), simple
        set of operations.

    - NFv9  - compact, but extensibility model (templates) don't
        provide the set of information which IPDR does.  Relatively
        simple.

    - Diameter - less compact due to AVP encoding model.  Extensibility
        model formalized, but not provided as a machine readable
        document.  Overhead of acking makes this seem too heavyweight
        for the requirements as specified.  Finally the requirement
        for a recorder to support the SCTP protocol seems prohibitive,
        since this may require kernel support lacking on several OS's.

    - LFAP - has a limited (numeric id based) extensibility model.
        Protocol is relatively simple.  The encoding is tag/len/value
        meaning it will be less compact than IPDR or NFv9.

    - CRANE - proprietary vendor format.  More complex than is
        needed for IPFIX use case (20 different operation codes).
        Template based (like NFv9), has similar lack of formalism
        in actual definition of extensions.

Regards,

   Jeff Meyer
   [email-masked]

--
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/