Re: [ipfix] New mailing list and ID on passive packet measurement

[Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>]

Hi,

I would like to understand...

In your draft you wrote:

Abstract

   A wide range of traffic engineering and troubleshooting tasks rely on
   reliable, timely, and detailed traffic measurements. We describe a
   passive packet measurement framework that is (a) general enough to
   serve as the basis for a wide range of operational tasks, and (b)
   relies on a small set of primitives that facilitate uniform
   deployment in router interfaces or dedicated measurement devices,
   even at very high speeds. This document describes the motivation for
   such a framework through several operational examples, defines the
   measurement primitives (filtering, sampling, and hashing), and
   illustrates their use.

So now if I take just a few sentences of the draft, it looks really like the IPFIX effort:
"total number of packets and bytes, dropped number of packets and bytes"
"  The operator has to be able to determine how many
   bytes/packets are generated for each source/destination address, port
   number, and prefix, or other attributes, such as protocol number,
   MPLS forwarding equivalence class (FEC), type of service, etc."
"the volume per ingress-egress pair has to be measured (traffic matrix.)"
"  The spatial resolution of these averages include the source
   and destination IP address, AS, prefix, port number, and the previous
   and next hop AS with respect to the measurement domain."
etc...

You speak about packet selection, filtering, sampling, etc...
Things that are covered in the IPFIX requirements. Maybe not in great details, but we can't be too specific in a requirements document.

So my questions are:
- How do you see the relationship of your draft with IPFIX?
- If you are concentrating on the metering process (and only in case of sampling), isn't a IPFIX discussion ? See section 4 of:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-reqs-00.txt
Which should be covered in the "Draft on IP Flow Export Architecture" as described in the IPFIX charter
- Why a new mailing list and a new BOF?

Please let me know.

Regards, Benoit.
> 
> 
> We would like to announce the availability of a new Internet Draft
> 
> draft-duffield-framework-papame-00.txt
> 
> (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-duffield-framework-papame-00.txt)
> 
> and a mailing list 
> 
>    listname : psamp@ops.ietf.org (packet sampling)
>    subscribe: psamp-request@ops.ietf.org
>    archive  : <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/psamp/>
> 
> The purpose of the ID and the list is to spur discussion on
> formulating requirements for and define the functionality of a passive
> packet sampling device in network elements.
> 
> The goals underlying the proposed packet sampling framework are: 
> 
> - generality: it should serve as the basis for a wide range of
>   operational tasks, and
> - simplicity and efficiency: it relies on a small set of primitives that
>   facilitate uniform deployment in router interfaces or dedicated
>   measurement devices, even at very high speeds.
> 
> We invite discussion of the framework on the psamp mailing list, and
> we hope to hold a bar bof at the SLC IETF, and a bof in March next year.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Randy Bush
> Nick Duffield
> Albert Greenberg
> Matt Grossglauser
> Jennifer Rexford
> AT&T Labs - Research
> 
> --
> Help        mailto:majordomo@net.doit.wisc.edu and say "help" in message body
> Unsubscribe mailto:majordomo@net.doit.wisc.edu and say
> "unsubscribe ipfix" in message body
> Archive     http://ipfix.doit.wisc.edu/archive/
> 

to unsubscribe send a message to psamp-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.