Re: ID on passive packet measurement

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

> Seems to me that although psamp may well provide different ways 
> of specifying which packets are of interest, it will share with
> ipfix the need for a clean, congestion-aware transport to get its
> data back to whatever is going to collect and analyse that data.

yup.  but the data are different, one is packets, the other flows.
so the format will not be common.  as to a nice congestion-friendly
and reliable transport, why not shock the world and use an existing
one?

> Anyway, I'm trying to refine the ipfix agenda for IETF 52.  I think
> it would be useful to have someone from psamp speak about psamp
> and what it's trying to do.  Would that be a good idea?  If so,
> can you suggest one or two people who'd be prepared to speak, please?

one of
    duffield@research.att.com
    albert@research.att.com
    mgross@research.att.com
    jrex@research.att.com

i am just collateral damage

randy

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