Subject: [IPFIX] IPFIX totalLength?

From: Paul Aitken <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:48:13 +0100

I was looking for an IPv6 IE equivalent to #190, totalLengthIPv4 - but I
could not find one.

Probably all we can do is to calculate #191 payloadLengthIPv6 + 40.

A new IE, "totalLengthIPv6", would be useful - as would a generic
"IPtotalLength" IE.

-- 
Paul Aitken
Cisco Systems Ltd, Edinburgh, Scotland.

_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix

---

From: Lutz Mark <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 17:39:45 +0200

> A new IE, "totalLengthIPv6", would be useful - as would a generic

yes, and to make it complete we need packetTotalLength to
be able to count link layer bytes also.

Best regards,
Lutz

---

From: Lutz Mark <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 17:39:45 +0200

Best regards,
Lutz

---

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:22:21 +0200

Hi Lutz and Paul,

>> A new IE, "totalLengthIPv6", would be useful - as would a generic

I agree that we should provide an IE for reporting this information.

Shall we use a specific IE for IPv6 or rather use a generic IE totalLengthIP
that can be applied to all IP packets? I have a preference for the generic one,
because it gives us more options when applying it.

The data type of either totalLengthIPv6 or totalLengthIP must be unsigned64,
because the maximum jumbo payload length is 2^32 - 1 and with the additional
40 octets from the header we exceed what can be represented by 32 bits.

> be able to count link layer bytes also.

We have already #312 dataLinkFrameSize in the PSAMP info model.
I-D PSAMP-INFO is expired, because we are waiting for IPFIX-INFO
to converge before submitting a new version.  But you can find the
set of IEs that is under discussion for PSAMP-INFO at the IPFIX
Info Model Browser at <http://ipfix.netlab.nec.de/infoElements.php>.
PSAMP-INFO elements have IDs >= 300.

Thanks,

    Juergen

---

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:22:21 +0200

Hi Lutz and Paul,

Thanks,

    Juergen

---

From: Andrew Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:35:12 +0100

> because it gives us more options when applying it.

I do not think we want a specific one.  We have a specific totalLengthIPv4 as
that is a field found in the IPv4 header.  This is consistent with having a
specific payloadLengthIPv6 (found in the IPv6 header) and a generic
ipPayloadLength.

I think the meaning of this new IE will be consistent with minimumPacketLength
and maximumPacketLength fields:
  ...  The packet length includes the IP header(s) length and the IP payload
  length.

However, packetLength seems a misleading name and ipTotalLength would be
more appropriate.  With this in mind, perhaps the aforementioned fields
could be renamed to minimumIpTotalLength and maximumIpTotalLength.

> 40 octets from the header we exceed what can be represented by 32 bits.

This seems reasonable.  Note that the above min/max fields have a data type
of unsigned16, which seems woefully short.

>> be able to count link layer bytes also.

I think this proves the point about packetLength being a misleading name :-)

regards

Andrew

---

From: Andrew Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:35:12 +0100

regards

Andrew

---

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:03:15 +0200

Hi Andrew,

> could be renamed to minimumIpTotalLength and maximumIpTotalLength.

Fine with me.
Anyone objecting?

> of unsigned16, which seems woefully short.

You are right.
Would anyone have a problem with changing the datatypes of min/maximumIpTotalLength
from unsigned16 to unsigned64?

> I think this proves the point about packetLength being a misleading name :-)

:-)

Thanks,

    Juergen

---

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:03:15 +0200

Hi Andrew,

Fine with me.
Anyone objecting?

You are right.

:-)

Thanks,

    Juergen