RE: passive packet measurement

["Norseth, KC" <knorseth@enterasys.com>]

|-----Original Message-----
|From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy@research.att.com] 
|Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 3:17 PM
|To: Norseth, KC
|Cc: 'Nick Duffield'; Harrington, David; Jennifer L Rexford; 
|Albert Greenberg; Matthias Grossglauser; psamp@ops.ietf.org
|Subject: RE: passive packet measurement
|
|
|[ psamp list added to cc:s ]
|
|<ad hat on>
|
|we are trying to keep psamp and ipfix efforts separate.  

To Randy with the AD hat:  what is the concensus of the IETF AD's and such
about the feasibility of a PSAMP WG?  Is it going to BOF in March?

|ipfix has a major, noble, but not simple goal, getting _flow_ 
|measurement as it is standardized so data from multiple 
|vendors are comensurate and similarly controllable.
|
|psamp is to work on non-flow sampling.

Ok. I can see how these are two different efforts.  This could take off in
that way.  I remember the discussion on the mailing list when the bar room
BOF was announced.  That didn't happen though did it?  I didn't worry more
about it where there was discussion about it when this was supposed to be
discussed at the IPFIX session.

Whether or not this takes off, it is good information to reference in the
IPFIX wg.

|nick and crew, it might be good to get a charter discussion 
|going on the psamp mailing list.

Out of curiosity, who else is involved other than AT&T?  What is the
interest coming out from others?

|randy

K.C.


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