Subject: [IPFIX] draft-ietf-ipfix-mib-variable-export-06

From: Paul Aitken <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2014 00:16:06 +0100

Rocco,

Thanks for the feedback.

What change, if any, would you like to see in the draft?

Thanks,
P.

> On Oct 27, 2014, at 08:07, Brian Trammell <ietf at trammell.ch> wrote:
>
>
> On 26 Oct 2014, at 16:50, Paul Aitken <paitken at cisco.com> wrote:
>
>> Collectors should understand the equivalence and map the IPFIX IE and the MIB object to the same internal entity, so there should be no difficultly in comparing or combining data.
>
> ...but it strikes me as a little unkind to publish this document as a "you can do this, collectors will handle the mess" without at least an appendix linking IEs in the present IANA registry to commonly-used MIB objects. But I'll step back and let people who write collectors for customers other than themselves comment on this statement.

Collector processes are under constant pressure to scale higher.  As described here, the mapping seems to centralize a burden that could remain distributed.  It also seems that exporters can statically map the data they're configured to export, while collectors developed for heterogeneous enterprise-scale environments must dynamically be capable of handling everything the protocol can provide.

--
Rocco Caputo <rocco at plixer.com>