From brownn@Brocade.com Thu Jun 4 04:07:40 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8230A1A0117 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 04:07:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.267 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.267 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tks1p23wUsQJ for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 04:07:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0b-000f0801.pphosted.com (mx0b-000f0801.pphosted.com [67.231.152.113]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7123B1A010E for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 04:07:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0000700.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-000f0801.pphosted.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with SMTP id t54AUwjL006547 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 04:07:37 -0700 Received: from brmwp-exchub02.corp.brocade.com ([208.47.132.227]) by mx0b-000f0801.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 1ute3h8q3t-1 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 04 Jun 2015 04:07:37 -0700 Received: from BRMWP-EXMB12.corp.brocade.com (172.16.59.130) by BRMWP-EXCHUB02.corp.brocade.com (172.16.187.99) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.123.3; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 05:07:21 -0600 Received: from BRMWP-EXMB11.corp.brocade.com (172.16.59.77) by BRMWP-EXMB12.corp.brocade.com (172.16.59.130) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1044.25; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 05:07:20 -0600 Received: from BRMWP-EXMB11.corp.brocade.com ([fe80::39a0:e6f2:6a5c:18a9]) by BRMWP-EXMB11.corp.brocade.com ([fe80::39a0:e6f2:6a5c:18a9%23]) with mapi id 15.00.1044.021; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 05:07:20 -0600 From: Nick Brown To: "ipfix@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: ipNextHopIPv6Address reported address Thread-Index: AQHQnrafPB/7xd762E2gLPa3+qr4pQ== Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 11:07:19 +0000 Message-ID: <1433416039.22978.70.camel@brocade.com> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [172.27.212.84] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <173A576CF63CE14CB7A8B9A9A94B172D@brocade.local> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.14.151, 1.0.33, 0.0.0000 definitions=2015-06-04_05:2015-06-03,2015-06-04,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1402240000 definitions=main-1506040135 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 05:37:14 -0700 Cc: Luca Boccassi , Derek Fawcus , Paul Atkins , Doug Gordon Subject: [IPFIX] ipNextHopIPv6Address reported address X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Nick Brown List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 11:09:24 -0000 SGkgQWxsLA0KDQpJbiBhIHNlbnRlbmNlLCBpcyBpdCBleHBlY3RlZCB0aGF0IGlwTmV4dEhvcElQ djZBZGRyZXNzIHNob3VsZCByZXBvcnQNCnRoZSBnbG9iYWwgaXB2NiBhZGRyZXNzIG9mIHRoZSBu ZXh0IGhvcCB3aGVuIGl0IGhhcyBvbmUsIG9yIG1heSB0aGUgbGluaw0KbG9jYWwgYWRkcmVzcyBi ZSByZXBvcnRlZCBpbnN0ZWFkPw0KaHR0cDovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2h0bWwvcmZjNTEwMiNz ZWN0aW9uLTUuNy4zDQoNClRoZXJlIGFyZSBvYnZpb3VzIGNhc2VzIHdoZXJlIHRoZSBuZXh0IGhv cCBtYXkgb25seSBoYXZlIGxpbmsgbG9jYWwNCmFkZHJlc3MsIGlmIGV4YW1wbGUgaXQncyBvbmx5 IGNvbmZpZ3VyZWQgdGhhdCB3YXkuIEJ1dCBpbiBvdGhlciBjYXNlcw0Kd2hlcmUgaXQgbWF5IGhh dmUgYm90aCBhIGxpbmsgbG9jYWwgYW5kIGdsb2JhbCBhZGRyZXNzIGl0J3Mgb2Z0ZW4gdGhlDQpj YXNlIHRoYXQgcm91dGluZyBwcm90b2NvbHMgbWF5IHVzZSBsb2NhbCBhZGRyZXNzZXMgdG8gc2V0 dXAgdGhlDQpmb3J3YXJkaW5nIHBsYW5lIHdoZXJlIHRyYWZmaWMgaXMgYmVpbmcgb2JzZXJ2ZWQu IFRodXMgYXQgdGhlIHBvaW50IGluDQp0aGUgZm9yd2FyZGluZyBwYXRoIHRoYXQgdHJhZmZpYyBp cyBiZWluZyBvYnNlcnZlZCB0aGlzIGFsbCB0aGF0IGlzDQphdmFpbGFibGUsIGFuZCBpdCdzIG5v dCBhcHBhcmVudCB0aGF0IGEgbWFwcGluZyBmcm9tIGxpbmsgbG9jYWwgYWRkcmVzcw0KdG8gZ2xv YmFsIGFkZHJlc3MgKHdoZXJlIGlzIGV4aXN0cykgY2FuIGJlIGRvbmUuDQoNCkNoZWVycywNCk5p Y2sNCg0KDQo= From nobody Thu Jun 4 06:57:30 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D43261B34D4 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 06:57:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, T_SUBJ_BRKN_WORDNUMS=0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9klHG-QGPxSW for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 06:57:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from trammell.ch (trammell.ch [5.148.172.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BDD21B34FB for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 06:47:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:67c:10ec:52c8:8000::e9e] (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:10ec:52c8:8000::e9e]) by trammell.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 497201A0302; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 15:47:21 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_58534407-8080-4E58-8A79-2EC8DB3A6BA2"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b6 From: Brian Trammell In-Reply-To: <1433416039.22978.70.camel@brocade.com> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 15:47:21 +0200 Message-Id: References: <1433416039.22978.70.camel@brocade.com> To: Nick Brown X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098) Archived-At: Cc: Luca Boccassi , Doug Gordon , Derek Fawcus , "ipfix@ietf.org" , Paul Atkins Subject: Re: [IPFIX] ipNextHopIPv6Address reported address X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 13:57:29 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_58534407-8080-4E58-8A79-2EC8DB3A6BA2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > On 04 Jun 2015, at 13:07, Nick Brown wrote: >=20 > Hi All, >=20 > In a sentence, is it expected that ipNextHopIPv6Address should report > the global ipv6 address of the next hop when it has one, or may the = link > local address be reported instead? > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5102#section-5.7.3 First, the proper reference for the definitions of IEs in the IPFIX = information model is http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml; = per 7012, 5102 is no longer considered authoritative for IE definitions. (In this case, though, this is an admittedly pedantic distinction; the = content is identical). > There are obvious cases where the next hop may only have link local > address, if example it's only configured that way. But in other cases > where it may have both a link local and global address it's often the > case that routing protocols may use local addresses to setup the > forwarding plane where traffic is being observed. Thus at the point in > the forwarding path that traffic is being observed this all that is > available, and it's not apparent that a mapping from link local = address > to global address (where is exists) can be done. The way I read this, if the address is not being changed as part of the = packet handing (on which see the fifth point in section 2.3 of RFC = 7012), the address to report is the address the packets are sent to in = the context of the egress interface. If the connection between the = device the MP is on and the next hop has link-local addresses only, then = the link-local address is the correct one to export. Cheers, Brian --Apple-Mail=_58534407-8080-4E58-8A79-2EC8DB3A6BA2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVcFbpAAoJENt3nsOmbNJcg68IALP9fC1qPy32bSzDj3NmC4Iu 2/Oh6eJex2gAmYDurKmV6XV8zgdDVTwS5O6oJ5tzUxN3xwtucYoYoHJ2x269RZSZ lLb4nCAxPosvypONiNK54iD7dnAQR/aYFHegpuY98jh6gRR1JgiOxMchoNidIlj1 kOMWSHYzsU0QbSyuggsjlOgonfUFjDMzeRmXTbI0Inc49sMlEG1yhEHRovWzE9Mh VYx307m45OXJwSqGC/OvbTM2XDXxRFhNY5t3mXul7uRarVmowZG5fDb7XZTxDKAv AqJSYhusT9l9+XGNKO0GIFKTofQTGINHHKTQq8SvKOorijT+K508p8780Qq6Tlk= =6fbL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_58534407-8080-4E58-8A79-2EC8DB3A6BA2-- From nobody Mon Jun 8 06:08:07 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 739331A8702 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 06:07:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.443 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.443 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SUBJ_BRKN_WORDNUMS=0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rVwWsGVJnpLd for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 06:07:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0b-000f0801.pphosted.com (mx0b-000f0801.pphosted.com [67.231.152.113]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4C3F1A86FD for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 06:07:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0048192.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-000f0801.pphosted.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with SMTP id t58Cplkp024205; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 06:07:51 -0700 Received: from hq1wp-exchub02.corp.brocade.com ([144.49.131.13]) by mx0b-000f0801.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 1uvfv1aw98-13 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 08 Jun 2015 06:07:51 -0700 Received: from BRMWP-EXCHUB02.corp.brocade.com (172.16.187.99) by HQ1WP-EXCHUB02.corp.brocade.com (10.70.38.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.123.3; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 06:07:43 -0700 Received: from BRMWP-EXMB12.corp.brocade.com (172.16.59.130) by BRMWP-EXCHUB02.corp.brocade.com (172.16.187.99) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.123.3; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 07:04:24 -0600 Received: from BRMWP-EXMB11.corp.brocade.com (172.16.59.77) by BRMWP-EXMB12.corp.brocade.com (172.16.59.130) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1044.25; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 07:04:23 -0600 Received: from BRMWP-EXMB11.corp.brocade.com ([fe80::39a0:e6f2:6a5c:18a9]) by BRMWP-EXMB11.corp.brocade.com ([fe80::39a0:e6f2:6a5c:18a9%23]) with mapi id 15.00.1044.021; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 07:04:22 -0600 From: Nick Brown To: "ietf@trammell.ch" Thread-Topic: [IPFIX] ipNextHopIPv6Address reported address Thread-Index: AQHQnragxqZ09DJjskmUvYozM+6f7J2cwR2AgAY9UIA= Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 13:04:21 +0000 Message-ID: <1433768661.3691.14.camel@brocade.com> References: <1433416039.22978.70.camel@brocade.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [172.27.212.51] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <0D71259A7424A545B2CE86A0C606142A@brocade.local> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.14.151, 1.0.33, 0.0.0000 definitions=2015-06-08_06:2015-06-08,2015-06-08,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1402240000 definitions=main-1506080216 Archived-At: Cc: Derek Fawcus , Luca Boccassi , Paul Atkins , "ipfix@ietf.org" , Doug Gordon Subject: Re: [IPFIX] ipNextHopIPv6Address reported address X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Nick Brown List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 13:07:58 -0000 T24gVGh1LCAyMDE1LTA2LTA0IGF0IDE1OjQ3ICswMjAwLCBCcmlhbiBUcmFtbWVsbCB3cm90ZToN Cj4gPiBPbiAwNCBKdW4gMjAxNSwgYXQgMTM6MDcsIE5pY2sgQnJvd24gPGJyb3dubkBCcm9jYWRl LmNvbT4gd3JvdGU6DQo+ID4gDQo+ID4gSGkgQWxsLA0KPiA+IA0KPiA+IEluIGEgc2VudGVuY2Us IGlzIGl0IGV4cGVjdGVkIHRoYXQgaXBOZXh0SG9wSVB2NkFkZHJlc3Mgc2hvdWxkIHJlcG9ydA0K PiA+IHRoZSBnbG9iYWwgaXB2NiBhZGRyZXNzIG9mIHRoZSBuZXh0IGhvcCB3aGVuIGl0IGhhcyBv bmUsIG9yIG1heSB0aGUgbGluaw0KPiA+IGxvY2FsIGFkZHJlc3MgYmUgcmVwb3J0ZWQgaW5zdGVh ZD8NCj4gPiBodHRwOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9yZmM1MTAyI3NlY3Rpb24tNS43LjMN Cj4gDQo+IEZpcnN0LCB0aGUgcHJvcGVyIHJlZmVyZW5jZSBmb3IgdGhlIGRlZmluaXRpb25zIG9m IElFcyBpbiB0aGUgSVBGSVggaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gbW9kZWwgaXMgaHR0cDovL3d3dy5pYW5hLm9y Zy9hc3NpZ25tZW50cy9pcGZpeC9pcGZpeC54aHRtbDsgcGVyIDcwMTIsIDUxMDIgaXMgbm8gbG9u Z2VyIGNvbnNpZGVyZWQgYXV0aG9yaXRhdGl2ZSBmb3IgSUUgZGVmaW5pdGlvbnMuDQo+IA0KPiAo SW4gdGhpcyBjYXNlLCB0aG91Z2gsIHRoaXMgaXMgYW4gYWRtaXR0ZWRseSBwZWRhbnRpYyBkaXN0 aW5jdGlvbjsgdGhlIGNvbnRlbnQgaXMgaWRlbnRpY2FsKS4NCj4gDQo+ID4gVGhlcmUgYXJlIG9i dmlvdXMgY2FzZXMgd2hlcmUgdGhlIG5leHQgaG9wIG1heSBvbmx5IGhhdmUgbGluayBsb2NhbA0K PiA+IGFkZHJlc3MsIGlmIGV4YW1wbGUgaXQncyBvbmx5IGNvbmZpZ3VyZWQgdGhhdCB3YXkuIEJ1 dCBpbiBvdGhlciBjYXNlcw0KPiA+IHdoZXJlIGl0IG1heSBoYXZlIGJvdGggYSBsaW5rIGxvY2Fs IGFuZCBnbG9iYWwgYWRkcmVzcyBpdCdzIG9mdGVuIHRoZQ0KPiA+IGNhc2UgdGhhdCByb3V0aW5n IHByb3RvY29scyBtYXkgdXNlIGxvY2FsIGFkZHJlc3NlcyB0byBzZXR1cCB0aGUNCj4gPiBmb3J3 YXJkaW5nIHBsYW5lIHdoZXJlIHRyYWZmaWMgaXMgYmVpbmcgb2JzZXJ2ZWQuIFRodXMgYXQgdGhl IHBvaW50IGluDQo+ID4gdGhlIGZvcndhcmRpbmcgcGF0aCB0aGF0IHRyYWZmaWMgaXMgYmVpbmcg b2JzZXJ2ZWQgdGhpcyBhbGwgdGhhdCBpcw0KPiA+IGF2YWlsYWJsZSwgYW5kIGl0J3Mgbm90IGFw cGFyZW50IHRoYXQgYSBtYXBwaW5nIGZyb20gbGluayBsb2NhbCBhZGRyZXNzDQo+ID4gdG8gZ2xv YmFsIGFkZHJlc3MgKHdoZXJlIGlzIGV4aXN0cykgY2FuIGJlIGRvbmUuDQo+IA0KPiBUaGUgd2F5 IEkgcmVhZCB0aGlzLCBpZiB0aGUgYWRkcmVzcyBpcyBub3QgYmVpbmcgY2hhbmdlZCBhcyBwYXJ0 IG9mIHRoZSBwYWNrZXQgaGFuZGluZyAob24gd2hpY2ggc2VlIHRoZSBmaWZ0aCBwb2ludCBpbiBz ZWN0aW9uIDIuMyBvZiBSRkMgNzAxMiksIHRoZSBhZGRyZXNzIHRvIHJlcG9ydCBpcyB0aGUgYWRk cmVzcyB0aGUgcGFja2V0cyBhcmUgc2VudCB0byBpbiB0aGUgY29udGV4dCBvZiB0aGUgZWdyZXNz IGludGVyZmFjZS4gSWYgdGhlIGNvbm5lY3Rpb24gYmV0d2VlbiB0aGUgZGV2aWNlIHRoZSBNUCBp cyBvbiBhbmQgdGhlIG5leHQgaG9wIGhhcyBsaW5rLWxvY2FsIGFkZHJlc3NlcyBvbmx5LCB0aGVu IHRoZSBsaW5rLWxvY2FsIGFkZHJlc3MgaXMgdGhlIGNvcnJlY3Qgb25lIHRvIGV4cG9ydC4NCg0K aXBOZXh0SG9wSVB2NkFkZHJlc3MgaXMgYSBkZXJpdmVkIGZpZWxkLCBkZXJpdmVkIGZyb20gdGhl IHRyZWF0bWVudCBvZg0KdGhlIHBhY2tldCBieSB0aGUgc3dpdGNoaW5nIHBhdGggdGhhdCBjb25z dGl0dXRlcyBvdXIgT2JzZXJ2YXRpb24gcG9pbnQuDQpXaGlsZSBhdCB0aGUgZ2xvYmFsIG5ldHdv cmsgbGV2ZWwgYW5kIHBvc3NpYmx5IGF0IHRoZSBjb25maWd1cmF0aW9uDQpsZXZlbCBvZiB0aGUg SVBGSVggRGV2aWNlJ3MgTWV0ZXJpbmcgUHJvY2VzcyB0aGUgaW50ZXJmYWNlIG9mIHRoZSBOZXh0 DQpIb3AgbWF5IGhhdmUgYm90aCBhIGxpbmsgbG9jYWwgSVBWNiBhZGRyZXNzIGFuZCBnbG9iYWwg SVBWNiBhZGRyZXNzLCB0aGUNCm9ubHkgb25lIHJlYWRpbHkgYXZhaWxhYmxlIHRvIHRoZSBNZXRl cmluZyBQcm9jZXNzIGlzIHRoZSBsaW5rIGxvY2FsDQphZGRyZXNzIHVzZWQgYnkgdGhlIHN3aXRj aGluZyBwYXRoIHRvIGRvIGl0J3Mgd29yaywgc28gdGhhdCBpcyB3aGF0IHdlDQpyZXBvcnQuDQoN CkNoZWVycywNCk5pY2sNCg0KDQo= From nobody Fri Jun 19 01:37:09 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3E191A874B for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 01:37:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id png7G9m0Jom9 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 01:37:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out27-ams.mf.surf.net (out27-ams.mf.surf.net [145.0.1.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61CA81A874A for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 01:37:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtps.utwente.nl (smtp-o1.utsp.utwente.nl [130.89.2.9]) by outgoing1-ams.mf.surf.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id t5J8b30A003856 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 10:37:03 +0200 Received: from rh-macmini.ewi.utwente.nl (rh-macmini.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.13.224]) by smtps.utwente.nl (8.13.8) with ESMTP id t5J8b2Ei006798 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 10:37:03 +0200 From: Rick Hofstede Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CF17BE38-1230-4706-9194-A5834C8DD8DD" Message-Id: Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 10:37:02 +0200 To: ipfix@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098) X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: utwente-out:default, base:default, @@RPTN) X-CanIt-Geo: ip=130.89.2.9; country=NL; region=Provincie Overijssel; city=Enschede; latitude=52.2183; longitude=6.8958; http://maps.google.com/maps?q=52.2183,6.8958&z=6 X-CanItPRO-Stream: utwente-out:default (inherits from utwente:default, base:default) X-Canit-Stats-ID: 0uOG8B39P - 4fceb5cedcd3 - 20150619 (trained as not-spam) X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) Archived-At: Subject: [IPFIX] Interpretation of sequence number handling X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 08:37:08 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_CF17BE38-1230-4706-9194-A5834C8DD8DD Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Dear list, RFC 7011 defines the following regarding sequence numbers in Message = headers (Section 3.1 =E2=80=94 Message Header Format): Incremental = sequence counter modulo 2^32 of all IPFIX Data Records sent in the = current stream from the current Observation Domain by the Exporting = Process. This can however be interpreted in two ways: (1) Incremental sequence counter modulo 2^32 of all IPFIX Data Records = sent in the current stream from the current Observation Domain by the = Exporting Process *up to* this Message. (2) Incremental sequence counter modulo 2^32 of all IPFIX Data Records = sent in the current stream from the current Observation Domain by the = Exporting Process *up to and including* this Message. It seems that only Section 10.3.2 =E2=80=94 Reliability explains which = of the two interpretations is right: In the case of UDP, the IPFIX = Sequence Number contains the total number of IPFIX Data Records sent for = the Transport Session *prior* to the receipt of this IPFIX Message, = modulo 2^32. In my opinion, it would be good to clarify the use of sequence numbers = in Message headers already in the definition of sequence numbers in RFC = 7011, namely in Section 3.1. Best regards, =E2=80=94 Rick Hofstede= --Apple-Mail=_CF17BE38-1230-4706-9194-A5834C8DD8DD Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Dear list,

RFC 7011 defines the following regarding sequence numbers in = Message headers (Section 3.1 =E2=80=94 Message Header Format): Incremental sequence counter modulo 2^32 of all IPFIX Data = Records sent in the current stream from the current Observation Domain = by the Exporting Process.

This can however be interpreted in two = ways:

(1) = Incremental sequence counter modulo 2^32 of all IPFIX Data Records sent = in the current stream from the current Observation Domain by the = Exporting Process *up to* this Message.
(2) = Incremental sequence counter modulo 2^32 of all IPFIX Data Records sent = in the current stream from the current Observation Domain by the = Exporting Process *up to and including* this Message.

It seems that only = Section 10.3.2 =E2=80=94 Reliability explains which of the two = interpretations is right: In the case of UDP, the = IPFIX Sequence Number contains the total number of IPFIX Data Records = sent for the Transport Session *prior* to the receipt of this IPFIX = Message, modulo 2^32.

In my opinion, it would be good to clarify the use of = sequence numbers in Message headers already in the definition of = sequence numbers in RFC 7011, namely in Section 3.1.

Best regards,

=E2=80=94
Rick Hofstede
= --Apple-Mail=_CF17BE38-1230-4706-9194-A5834C8DD8DD-- From nobody Fri Jun 19 01:39:14 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C5581A876E for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 01:39:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.142 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.142 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.77, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VxQ2iu9dxaCB for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 01:39:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from trammell.ch (trammell.ch [5.148.172.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 882511A874A for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 01:39:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.0.87] (unknown [89.246.150.136]) by trammell.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9164B1A00B8; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 10:39:10 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_67F1D8AA-9A16-4DDE-82FA-D817F682E5DB"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5 From: Brian Trammell In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 10:39:10 +0200 Message-Id: <13F121FB-2F92-45A8-9754-A03B10C82B6A@trammell.ch> References: To: Rick Hofstede X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098) Archived-At: Cc: ipfix@ietf.org Subject: Re: [IPFIX] Interpretation of sequence number handling X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 08:39:13 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_67F1D8AA-9A16-4DDE-82FA-D817F682E5DB Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 hi Rick, Yep, this is a good point. Could you file an editorial erratum? Thanks, cheers, Brian > On 19 Jun 2015, at 10:37, Rick Hofstede = wrote: >=20 > Dear list, >=20 > RFC 7011 defines the following regarding sequence numbers in Message = headers (Section 3.1 =E2=80=94 Message Header Format): Incremental = sequence counter modulo 2^32 of all IPFIX Data Records sent in the = current stream from the current Observation Domain by the Exporting = Process. >=20 > This can however be interpreted in two ways: >=20 > (1) Incremental sequence counter modulo 2^32 of all IPFIX Data Records = sent in the current stream from the current Observation Domain by the = Exporting Process *up to* this Message. > (2) Incremental sequence counter modulo 2^32 of all IPFIX Data Records = sent in the current stream from the current Observation Domain by the = Exporting Process *up to and including* this Message. >=20 > It seems that only Section 10.3.2 =E2=80=94 Reliability explains which = of the two interpretations is right: In the case of UDP, the IPFIX = Sequence Number contains the total number of IPFIX Data Records sent for = the Transport Session *prior* to the receipt of this IPFIX Message, = modulo 2^32. >=20 > In my opinion, it would be good to clarify the use of sequence numbers = in Message headers already in the definition of sequence numbers in RFC = 7011, namely in Section 3.1. >=20 > Best regards, >=20 > =E2=80=94 > Rick Hofstede > _______________________________________________ > IPFIX mailing list > IPFIX@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix --Apple-Mail=_67F1D8AA-9A16-4DDE-82FA-D817F682E5DB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVg9UuAAoJENt3nsOmbNJcOlAIALCfPiyxchLk44X90EmSN+64 srm7UwG8vFjldUlr/JmUzMMeiVjI0fapOsAdNUt2lAxmI7zb2GOx7JCorZpijjf+ GRYZEpS/dJuim3AEJ4IHvnnc6JkG3a7waK62IK/Ld+xhUXL/4Q1uCshUtkGnFQB0 lYqbb2jhRTJ5DlRl/5NUoJ5A9rfdIzELqGGPymn4zXolLAij2TPdMAnvHf515vkg +D0zQNDJdS1W2lOf+V6p8gawLT9BG5A++zyWOuCw8TJMLMb5k4Tht5XEonrM3TZp xCk22a/h5ug2onAFG4aCh5XdL7830XHGRLumBmtQln+TP1xC4O6OZZb9Qd/Pw5E= =pjEk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_67F1D8AA-9A16-4DDE-82FA-D817F682E5DB-- From nobody Fri Jun 19 02:04:04 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04F921A87AF for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 02:04:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.912 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hddMUDAOCcUF for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 02:04:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D96E71A87AC for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 02:04:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 6CE63180206; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 02:01:09 -0700 (PDT) To: bclaise@cisco.com, trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch, paitken@cisco.com, bclaise@cisco.com, joelja@bogus.com, n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz, quittek@neclab.eu X-PHP-Originating-Script: 6000:errata_mail_lib.php From: RFC Errata System Message-Id: <20150619090109.6CE63180206@rfc-editor.org> Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 02:01:09 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Cc: ipfix@ietf.org, rick.hofstede@redsocks.nl, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [IPFIX] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7011 (4396) X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 09:04:04 -0000 The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7011, "Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7011&eid=4396 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: Rick Hofstede Section: 3.1 Original Text ------------- Incremental sequence counter modulo 2^32 of all IPFIX Data Records sent in the current stream from the current Observation Domain by the Exporting Process. Corrected Text -------------- Incremental sequence counter modulo 2^32 of all IPFIX Data Records sent in the current stream from the current Observation Domain by the Exporting Process, prior to the receipt of this IPFIX Message. Notes ----- The original specification can be interpreted in two ways: (1) Incremental sequence counter modulo 2^32 of all IPFIX Data Records sent in the current stream from the current Observation Domain by the Exporting Process *up to* this Message. (2) Incremental sequence counter modulo 2^32 of all IPFIX Data Records sent in the current stream from the current Observation Domain by the Exporting Process *up to and including* this Message. It seems that only Section 10.3.2 — Reliability explains which of the two interpretations is right: In the case of UDP, the IPFIX Sequence Number contains the total number of IPFIX Data Records sent for the Transport Session *prior* to the receipt of this IPFIX Message, modulo 2^32. In my opinion, it would be good to clarify the use of sequence numbers in Message headers already in the definition of sequence numbers in RFC 7011, namely in Section 3.1. Discussed here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipfix/AQKObQ2WA_zIXgRzdxRsDrIWjx0 Instructions: ------------- This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC7011 (draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis-10) -------------------------------------- Title : Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information Publication Date : September 2013 Author(s) : B. Claise, Ed., B. Trammell, Ed., P. Aitken Category : INTERNET STANDARD Source : IP Flow Information Export Area : Operations and Management Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG