From _ahmed3@abefurniture.com Fri Feb 1 00:22:50 2008 Return-Path: <_ahmed3@abefurniture.com> X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C5C13A6872 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 00:22:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 79.387 X-Spam-Level: **************************************************************** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=79.387 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DOS_OE_TO_MX=2.75, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP=1.398, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, HTML_MESSAGE=1, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 1.2 HOST_EQ_IT HOST_EQ_IT * 0.8 FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D Host starts with d-d-d-d * 1.1 HELO_EQ_DSL HELO_EQ_DSL * 0.6 HELO_EQ_IT HELO_EQ_IT * 1.4 HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (DHCP) * 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 4 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 100] * 1.1 URIBL_RHS_DOB Contains an URI of a new domain (Day Old Bread) * [URIs: laughsize.com] * 10 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist * [URIs: laughsize.com] * 10 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL blocklist * [URIs: laughsize.com] * 10 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: laughsize.com] * 10 URIBL_SC_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the SC SURBL blocklist * [URIs: laughsize.com] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address * [151.50.25.145 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL * [151.50.25.145 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 20 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist * [URIs: laughsize.com] * 0.1 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to trusted network by host with * dynamic-looking rDNS * 2.8 DOS_OE_TO_MX Delivered direct to MX with OE headers Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 16sH-xeW1Peb for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 00:22:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from adsl-ull-145-25.50-151.net24.it (adsl-ull-145-25.50-151.net24.it [151.50.25.145]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DE553A687E for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 00:22:48 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000701c864ab$025ccd95$140c6aae@mnonyxug> From: "edmon pamela" <_ahmed3@abefurniture.com> To: Subject: ***SPAM*** 79.387 (5) Super-lover 2008! Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 06:37:46 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0004_01C864AB.0257CC6E" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C864AB.0257CC6E Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Awesome results in few weeks! ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C864AB.0257CC6E Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Awesome results in few = weeks! ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C864AB.0257CC6E-- From Cameron-preizarf@RpModel.com Fri Feb 1 01:09:12 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EA063A6843 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 01:09:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 99.165 X-Spam-Level: **************************************************************** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=99.165 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DOS_OE_TO_MX=2.75, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FS_HUGECOCK=10.357, HELO_EQ_IP_ADDR=1.119, HTML_MESSAGE=1, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, MANGLED_DICK=2.3, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RDNS_NONE=0.1, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 1.1 HELO_EQ_IP_ADDR HELO using IP Address (not private) * 1.5 FH_RELAY_NODNS We could not determine your Reverse DNS * 10 FS_HUGECOCK Phrase: Huge Cock * 0.6 J_CHICKENPOX_12 BODY: 1alpha-pock-2alpha * 2.3 MANGLED_DICK BODY: mangled dick * 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 4 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 100] * 20 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist * [URIs: ceutyes.com] * 10 URIBL_AB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the AB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: ceutyes.com] * 10 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist * [URIs: ceutyes.com] * 10 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL blocklist * [URIs: ceutyes.com] * 10 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: ceutyes.com] * 10 URIBL_SC_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the SC SURBL blocklist * [URIs: ceutyes.com] * 1.1 URIBL_RHS_DOB Contains an URI of a new domain (Day Old Bread) * [URIs: ceutyes.com] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL * [89.123.108.138 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 0.1 RDNS_NONE Delivered to trusted network by a host with no rDNS * 2.8 DOS_OE_TO_MX Delivered direct to MX with OE headers Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yEaO1DRPOjwk for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 01:09:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from [89.123.108.138] (unknown [89.123.108.138]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8177A3A68B3 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 01:08:51 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000901c864b2$48372930$8a6c7b59@cmobile> From: "Cameron Argabright" To: ipfix-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: ***SPAM*** 99.165 (5) Carry yourself with confidence - get your new huge d1ck here Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 11:10:25 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C864C3.0BBFF930" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 ----------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C864C3.0BBFF930 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable what do chicks dig? Girth and length, that's what ----------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C864C3.0BBFF930 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable what do chicks dig? Girth and = length, that's=20 what ----------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C864C3.0BBFF930-- From _pranzate@RpModel.com Fri Feb 1 01:09:15 2008 Return-Path: <_pranzate@RpModel.com> X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BA6B3A6874 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 01:09:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 86.508 X-Spam-Level: **************************************************************** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=86.508 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DOS_OE_TO_MX=2.75, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_IP_ADDR=1.119, HTML_MESSAGE=1, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RDNS_NONE=0.1, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 1.1 HELO_EQ_IP_ADDR HELO using IP Address (not private) * 1.5 FH_RELAY_NODNS We could not determine your Reverse DNS * 0.6 J_CHICKENPOX_42 BODY: 4alpha-pock-2alpha * 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 4 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 100] * 20 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist * [URIs: cleapie.com] * 10 URIBL_AB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the AB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: cleapie.com] * 10 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist * [URIs: cleapie.com] * 10 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL blocklist * [URIs: cleapie.com] * 10 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: cleapie.com] * 10 URIBL_SC_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the SC SURBL blocklist * [URIs: cleapie.com] * 1.1 URIBL_RHS_DOB Contains an URI of a new domain (Day Old Bread) * [URIs: cleapie.com] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL * [89.123.108.138 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 0.1 RDNS_NONE Delivered to trusted network by a host with no rDNS * 2.8 DOS_OE_TO_MX Delivered direct to MX with OE headers Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ifZHE3scuUNk for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 01:09:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from [89.123.108.138] (unknown [89.123.108.138]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ECE03A6872 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 01:09:13 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000d01c864b2$55ac4a50$8a6c7b59@cmobile> From: "Hae LeCraw" <_pranzate@RpModel.com> To: ipfix-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: ***SPAM*** 86.508 (5) Be the talk of the town with your new huge schl0ng Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 11:10:48 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C864C3.19351A50" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 ----------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C864C3.19351A50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable A revolutionary medical discovery has been made Find out more here ----------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C864C3.19351A50 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable A revolutionary medical discovery = has been=20 made Find out more here ----------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C864C3.19351A50-- From jraines@cpmg.org Fri Feb 1 02:52:36 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42DE73A68F8 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 02:52:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 114.752 X-Spam-Level: **************************************************************** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=114.752 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.441, BAYES_99=3.5, FB_PENIS=1.66, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_BIG_REASON=10.357, FRT_PENIS1=3.592, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_DYNAMIC_SPLIT_IP=3.493, HELO_EQ_IP_ADDR=1.119, HOST_EQ_USERONOCOM=1.444, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.552, HTML_MESSAGE=1, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6, MANGLED_ENLARG=2.3, MANGLED_ENLGMN=5, MANGLED_PENIS=2.3, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_FORGED_WROTE=2.523, RCVD_FORGED_WROTE2=4.325, RCVD_IN_DSBL=0.961, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_ADLTOBFU=0.68, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 1.4 HOST_EQ_USERONOCOM HOST_EQ_USERONOCOM * 0.8 FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D Host starts with d-d-d-d * 3.5 HELO_DYNAMIC_SPLIT_IP Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (Split * IP) * 1.1 HELO_EQ_IP_ADDR HELO using IP Address (not private) * 0.9 FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB Host is d-d-d-d * 4.4 HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2 Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (IP addr * 2) * 4.3 RCVD_FORGED_WROTE2 RCVD_FORGED_WROTE2 * 1.9 TVD_RCVD_IP TVD_RCVD_IP * 2.5 RCVD_FORGED_WROTE Forged 'Received' header found ('wrote:' spam) * 2.1 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains an IP address used for HELO * 2.3 MANGLED_PENIS BODY: mangled - Penis * 0.7 SARE_ADLTOBFU BODY: Contains OBFU adult material * 3.6 FRT_PENIS1 BODY: ReplaceTags: Penis * 5.0 MANGLED_ENLGMN BODY: mangled enlargement * 1.7 FB_PENIS BODY: FB_PENIS * 2.3 MANGLED_ENLARG BODY: mangled enlarge(r|s) * 0.6 J_CHICKENPOX_31 BODY: 3alpha-pock-1alpha * 0.0 NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP URI: Uses a dotted-decimal IP address in URL * 1.6 HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24 BODY: HTML: images with 2000-2400 bytes of words * 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 0.7 SARE_HTML_A_BODY FULL: Message body has very strange HTML sequence * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 4 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 100] * 20 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist * [URIs: domizu.com] * 10 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist * [URIs: domizu.com] * 10 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL blocklist * [URIs: domizu.com] * 10 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: domizu.com] * 1.1 URIBL_RHS_DOB Contains an URI of a new domain (Day Old Bread) * [URIs: domizu.com] * 3.0 RCVD_IN_XBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus XBL * [81.172.36.58 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL * 0.9 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address * [81.172.36.58 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] * 1.0 RCVD_IN_DSBL RBL: Received via a relay in list.dsbl.org * [] * 10 FM_BIG_REASON Lot's of CAP words, BIG, REASON, BEST * 0.1 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to trusted network by host with * dynamic-looking rDNS * -2.4 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 71d86z0UMppw for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 02:52:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from 81.172.36.58.dyn.user.ono.com (81.172.36.58.dyn.user.ono.com [81.172.36.58]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6FC503A6902 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 02:52:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from 64.131.63.4 (HELO mx2.usfamily.net) by lists.ietf.org with esmtp (IKMFDKRAU IRYEL) id hkVU86-ttODkF-sS for ipfix-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:52:52 +0100 Message-ID: <073601c864c0$98112ce0$3a24ac51@Christoper> From: "Christoper Calderon" To: "Anibal Rosa" Subject: ***SPAM*** 114.752 (5) Incredible results just in few weeks! Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:52:52 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_1844_079E_01C864C8.F9D594E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_1844_079E_01C864C8.F9D594E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In just a few short weeks, you`ll watch with amazement=20 as your phallus grows into the hardest, biggest, ,thickest and most power= ful tool=20 you`ve ever imagined - the one you`ve constantly wanted about=20 having! No pen!s en`l@rgement system is faster, easier to use, or=20 more effective than VPXL+ - THE BEST}! VPXL+ IS GUARANTEED TO EN`L@RGE & STRENGTHEN YOUR=20 PHALLUS OR YOUR MONEY BACK - PERIOD! SO WHY WAIT? GET=20 VPXL+ AND LIVE LARGE TODAY! TRY IS TODAY TO MAKE YOUR PEN|S BIGGER AND HARDER IN THIS YEAR! http://domizu=2Ecom/ most importantly when, but the theory told him where to point hishis Geig= er counter=2E It did not tell him what to aim it at precisely, orof world= events and world processes=2E His European background except for Soros, of course, who was permitted by the funds rules toAnd G= eorge Soros would become head of the greatest hedge fund ------=_NextPart_1844_079E_01C864C8.F9D594E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MAXIMIZE YOUR GROWTH, PERFORMANCE & STREN= GTH
WITH THIS REVOLUTIONARY PEN|S EN'L@RGEMENT BREAKTHROUGH! <= /FONT>

In = just a few short weeks, you`ll watch with amazement as your phallus
grows into the hardest, biggest, ,thickest and most powe= rful tool
you`ve ever imagined - the one you`ve constantly wanted abo= ut
having! No pen!s en`l@rgement system is faster, easier to use, or more effective than VPXL+ - THE BEST!

VPXL+ IS GUARANTEED TO EN`L@RGE & STRENGTHEN YOUR
PHALLUS OR YOUR MONEY BA= CK - PERIOD! SO WHY WAIT? GET
VPXL+ AND LIVE LARGE TODAY!

TRY IS TODAY TO MAKE YOUR PEN|S BIGGER AND HARDER IN = THIS YEAR!


76 Putting My Money Where My Mouth WasMarquez would then d= esign a staged effect, setting aside a certain
Marquez, that was class= ic George Soros-giving up the battle so that hemost importantly when, but= the theory told him where to point his
his Geiger counter=2E It did n= ot tell him what to aim it at precisely, orof world events and world proc= esses=2E His European background
except for Soros, of course, who was = permitted by the funds rules toAnd George Soros would become head of the = greatest hedge fund ------=_NextPart_1844_079E_01C864C8.F9D594E0-- From jquilez@anuntis.com Fri Feb 1 03:37:09 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E8A33A68B5 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 03:37:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 102.25 X-Spam-Level: **************************************************************** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=102.25 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_99=3.5, FB_PENIS=1.66, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FRT_PENIS1=3.592, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=1, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_3=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_74=0.6, MANGLED_ENLARG=2.3, MANGLED_ENLGMN=5, MANGLED_PENIS=2.3, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_FORGED_WROTE=2.523, RCVD_FORGED_WROTE2=4.325, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_ADLTOBFU=0.68, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 1.5 FH_RELAY_NODNS We could not determine your Reverse DNS * 4.3 RCVD_FORGED_WROTE2 RCVD_FORGED_WROTE2 * 2.5 RCVD_FORGED_WROTE Forged 'Received' header found ('wrote:' spam) * 2.3 MANGLED_PENIS BODY: mangled - Penis * 0.7 SARE_ADLTOBFU BODY: Contains OBFU adult material * 3.6 FRT_PENIS1 BODY: ReplaceTags: Penis * 5.0 MANGLED_ENLGMN BODY: mangled enlargement * 1.7 FB_PENIS BODY: FB_PENIS * 2.3 MANGLED_ENLARG BODY: mangled enlarge(r|s) * 0.6 J_CHICKENPOX_74 BODY: 7alpha-pock-4alpha * 0.6 J_CHICKENPOX_31 BODY: 3alpha-pock-1alpha * 0.0 NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP URI: Uses a dotted-decimal IP address in URL * 1.5 HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20 BODY: HTML: images with 1600-2000 bytes of words * 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 0.7 SARE_HTML_A_BODY FULL: Message body has very strange HTML sequence * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 4 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 100] * 20 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist * [URIs: domizu.com] * 10 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist * [URIs: domizu.com] * 10 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL blocklist * [URIs: domizu.com] * 10 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: domizu.com] * 10 URIBL_SC_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the SC SURBL blocklist * [URIs: domizu.com] * 1.1 URIBL_RHS_DOB Contains an URI of a new domain (Day Old Bread) * [URIs: domizu.com] * 2.0 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net * [Blocked - see ] * 3.0 RCVD_IN_XBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus XBL * [62.118.172.2 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 0.0 HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_3 HTML is very short with a linked image * 0.1 RDNS_NONE Delivered to trusted network by a host with no rDNS * 0.6 HELO_MISMATCH_COM HELO_MISMATCH_COM * -0.3 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1gAMfQO3lOcX for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 03:37:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from gbe.com (unknown [62.118.172.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id ECC563A67CF for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 03:37:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from 195.77.175.124 (HELO mail.anuntis.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (MCYIILOWJD OIDAJG) id UaLRA1-HW0dC7-rn for ipfix-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 14:38:40 +0300 Message-ID: <02b101c864c6$fe112da0$3e76ac02@Sheryl> From: "Sheryl Rainey" To: "Mamie Norwood" Subject: ***SPAM*** 102.25 (5) Make your phallus bigger and more solid! Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 14:38:40 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_687_0319_01C864E0.235E65A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_687_0319_01C864E0.235E65A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In just a few short weeks, you`ll watch with amazement=20 as your pen!s grows into the thickest, biggest, hardest, and most powerfu= l tool=20 you`ve ever imagined - the one you`ve always fantasized about=20 having! No pen!s en`l@rgement system is faster, easier to use, or=20 more effective than VPXL+ - FOREVER}! VPXL+ IS GUARANTEED TO EN`L@RGE & STRENGTHEN YOUR=20 PHALLUS OR YOUR MONEY BACK - PERIOD! SO WHY WAIT? GET=20 VPXL+ AND LIVE LARGE TODAY! TRY IS TODAY TO MAKE YOUR PEN|S BIGGER AND HARDER IN THIS YEAR! http://domizu=2Ecom/ the time of their detention and that the sailors "haveteams, scoring 3 po= wer play goals and 1 shorthandedMass wedding held against racism in Belgi= um 2007 Cricket World Cup: Bangladesh vs Bermuda"They're faced with a wall o= f silence," Marin said=2E "The ------=_NextPart_687_0319_01C864E0.235E65A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MAXIMIZE YOUR GROWTH, PERFORMANCE & STREN= GTH
WITH THIS REVOLUTIONARY PEN|S EN'L@RGEMENT BREAKTHROUGH! <= /FONT>

In = just a few short weeks, you`ll watch with amazement as your pen!s
grows into the thickest, biggest, hardest, and most powerf= ul tool
you`ve ever imagined - the one you`ve always fantasized about=
having! No pen!s en`l@rgement system is faster, easier to use, or more effective than VPXL+ - FOREVER!

VPXL+ IS GUARANTEED TO EN`L@RGE & STRENGTHEN YOUR
PHALLUS OR YOUR MONEY BA= CK - PERIOD! SO WHY WAIT? GET
VPXL+ AND LIVE LARGE TODAY!

TRY IS TODAY TO MAKE YOUR PEN|S BIGGER AND HARDER IN = THIS YEAR!


phone line servicesmagnitude 7=2E1 earthquake off the west= coast island of
remaining) in a crucial Group B match - the final gam= ethe time of their detention and that the sailors "have
teams, scoring= 3 power play goals and 1 shorthandedMass wedding held against racism in = Belgium
2007 Cricket World Cup: Bangladesh vs Bermuda"They're faced wi= th a wall of silence," Marin said=2E "The ------=_NextPart_687_0319_01C864E0.235E65A0-- From lex8debra74@4m-milano.com Fri Feb 1 04:34:32 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5B383A68FD for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 04:34:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 100.126 X-Spam-Level: **************************************************************** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=100.126 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DOS_OE_TO_MX=2.75, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, FS_REPLICA=0.994, GB_ROLEX=5, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, PRICES_ARE_AFFORDABLE=0.001, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX=1.666, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_REP=1.666, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 0.8 FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D Host starts with d-d-d-d * 2.4 HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (IP addr * 1) * 1.6 FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D Helo is d-d-d-d * 1.0 FS_REPLICA Subject says "replica" * 0.0 PRICES_ARE_AFFORDABLE BODY: Message says that prices aren't too * expensive * 5.0 GB_ROLEX BODY: I don't need a new watch! * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 4 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 100] * 20 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist * [URIs: tankseat.com] * 10 URIBL_AB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the AB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: tankseat.com] * 10 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist * [URIs: tankseat.com] * 10 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL blocklist * [URIs: tankseat.com] * 10 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: tankseat.com] * 10 URIBL_SC_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the SC SURBL blocklist * [URIs: tankseat.com] * 1.1 URIBL_RHS_DOB Contains an URI of a new domain (Day Old Bread) * [URIs: tankseat.com] * 2.0 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net * [Blocked - see ] * 0.6 RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB RBL: SORBS: sender is a abuseable web server * [72.45.208.67 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] * 2.0 FM_DDDD_TIMES_2 Dual helo + host eq d_d_d_d * 0.1 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to trusted network by host with * dynamic-looking rDNS * 1.7 SARE_SPEC_ROLEX Rolex watch spam * 1.7 SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_REP Rolex Replica * 2.8 DOS_OE_TO_MX Delivered direct to MX with OE headers Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4aRVn-0lk+Tz for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 04:34:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from rrcs-72-45-208-67.nys.biz.rr.com (rrcs-72-45-208-67.nys.biz.rr.com [72.45.208.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC5F13A692C for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 04:34:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000901c864cf$06a5e0c7$19dfd6be@ucmqrvw> From: "dalton wilson" To: "Joni Kennedy" Subject: ***SPAM*** 100.126 (5) diamond Replicas, affordable prices rolex Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 10:51:52 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 The finest of luxury timepieces at the LOWEST prices!! http://tankseat.com/ From Cleta-naavuttu@attractions.org Fri Feb 1 04:47:39 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78DCA3A6968 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 04:47:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 110.749 X-Spam-Level: **************************************************************** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=110.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DOS_OE_TO_MX=2.75, HELO_EQ_IP_ADDR=1.119, HOST_EQ_BROADBND=1.118, HOST_EQ_CZ=0.904, HTML_MESSAGE=1, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 1.1 HOST_EQ_BROADBND HOST_EQ_BROADBND * 1.1 HELO_EQ_IP_ADDR HELO using IP Address (not private) * 0.9 HOST_EQ_CZ HOST_EQ_CZ * 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 100] * 20 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist * [URIs: decidecompany.com] * 10 URIBL_AB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the AB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: decidecompany.com] * 10 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist * [URIs: decidecompany.com] * 10 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL blocklist * [URIs: decidecompany.com] * 10 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: decidecompany.com] * 10 URIBL_SC_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the SC SURBL blocklist * [URIs: decidecompany.com] * 1.1 URIBL_RHS_DOB Contains an URI of a new domain (Day Old Bread) * [URIs: decidecompany.com] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL * [83.208.214.166 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 3.0 RCVD_IN_XBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus XBL * 2.0 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net * [Blocked - see ] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address * [83.208.214.166 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] * 20 URIBL_SBL Contains an URL listed in the SBL blocklist * [URIs: decidecompany.com] * 2.8 DOS_OE_TO_MX Delivered direct to MX with OE headers Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ToggpbDtNg2x for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 04:47:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from [83.208.214.166] (166.214.broadband2.iol.cz [83.208.214.166]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D9743A694E for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 04:47:37 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001001c864d0$d811f5d0$a6d6d053@alberto> From: "Cleta Lyngholm" To: ipfix-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: ***SPAM*** 110.749 (5) musekini Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 13:49:12 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C864D9.39D65DD0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 ----------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C864D9.39D65DD0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Amplified Passion and Desire; Amplified Passion and Desire; ----------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C864D9.39D65DD0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Amplified Passion and Desire;
Amplified Passion and=20 Desire; ----------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C864D9.39D65DD0-- From mailman-bounces@core3.amsl.com Fri Feb 1 05:41:14 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CE04295841 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 05:39:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.589 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.589 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.010, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cii2-uqbokNV for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 05:39:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 288AA28E311 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 05:13:39 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: ietf.org mailing list memberships reminder From: mailman-owner@ietf.org To: ipfix-archive@optimus.ietf.org X-No-Archive: yes Message-ID: Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 05:03:30 -0800 Precedence: bulk X-BeenThere: mailman@core3.amsl.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 List-Id: X-List-Administrivia: yes Sender: mailman-bounces@core3.amsl.com Errors-To: mailman-bounces@core3.amsl.com This is a reminder, sent out once a month, about your ietf.org mailing list memberships. It includes your subscription info and how to use it to change it or unsubscribe from a list. You can visit the URLs to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. In addition to the URL interfaces, you can also use email to make such changes. For more info, send a message to the '-request' address of the list (for example, mailman-request@ietf.org) containing just the word 'help' in the message body, and an email message will be sent to you with instructions. If you have questions, problems, comments, etc, send them to mailman-owner@ietf.org. Thanks! http://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipfix/ipfix-archive%40optimus.ietf.org From mailman-bounces@core3.amsl.com Fri Feb 1 05:42:36 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 673D028D4DA for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 05:39:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.589 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.589 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.010, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2O1yvVm3Kwe7 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 05:39:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AD6D295BEE for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 05:13:27 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: ietf.org mailing list memberships reminder From: mailman-owner@ietf.org To: ipfix-archive@optimus.ietf.org X-No-Archive: yes Message-ID: Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 05:03:29 -0800 Precedence: bulk X-BeenThere: mailman@core3.amsl.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 List-Id: X-List-Administrivia: yes Sender: mailman-bounces@core3.amsl.com Errors-To: mailman-bounces@core3.amsl.com This is a reminder, sent out once a month, about your ietf.org mailing list memberships. It includes your subscription info and how to use it to change it or unsubscribe from a list. You can visit the URLs to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. In addition to the URL interfaces, you can also use email to make such changes. For more info, send a message to the '-request' address of the list (for example, mailman-request@ietf.org) containing just the word 'help' in the message body, and an email message will be sent to you with instructions. If you have questions, problems, comments, etc, send them to mailman-owner@ietf.org. Thanks! http://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipfix/ipfix-archive%40optimus.ietf.org From mailman-bounces@core3.amsl.com Fri Feb 1 06:14:01 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 477DA28D5E7 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 06:13:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.588 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.011, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yYitJrWd5Qua for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 06:13:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF6B628EB04 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 05:45:20 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: ietf.org mailing list memberships reminder From: mailman-owner@ietf.org To: ipfix-archive@lists.ietf.org X-No-Archive: yes Message-ID: Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 05:06:07 -0800 Precedence: bulk X-BeenThere: mailman@core3.amsl.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 List-Id: X-List-Administrivia: yes Sender: mailman-bounces@core3.amsl.com Errors-To: mailman-bounces@core3.amsl.com This is a reminder, sent out once a month, about your ietf.org mailing list memberships. It includes your subscription info and how to use it to change it or unsubscribe from a list. You can visit the URLs to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. In addition to the URL interfaces, you can also use email to make such changes. For more info, send a message to the '-request' address of the list (for example, mailman-request@ietf.org) containing just the word 'help' in the message body, and an email message will be sent to you with instructions. If you have questions, problems, comments, etc, send them to mailman-owner@ietf.org. Thanks! http://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipfix/ipfix-archive%40lists.ietf.org From mailman-bounces@core3.amsl.com Fri Feb 1 06:16:13 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59B952A3E8B for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 06:10:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.588 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.011, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SZ2S5tf2OjDw for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 06:10:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F32CD2A2DAD for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 05:45:12 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: ietf.org mailing list memberships reminder From: mailman-owner@ietf.org To: ipfix-archive@lists.ietf.org X-No-Archive: yes Message-ID: Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 05:06:06 -0800 Precedence: bulk X-BeenThere: mailman@core3.amsl.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 List-Id: X-List-Administrivia: yes Sender: mailman-bounces@core3.amsl.com Errors-To: mailman-bounces@core3.amsl.com This is a reminder, sent out once a month, about your ietf.org mailing list memberships. It includes your subscription info and how to use it to change it or unsubscribe from a list. You can visit the URLs to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. In addition to the URL interfaces, you can also use email to make such changes. For more info, send a message to the '-request' address of the list (for example, mailman-request@ietf.org) containing just the word 'help' in the message body, and an email message will be sent to you with instructions. If you have questions, problems, comments, etc, send them to mailman-owner@ietf.org. Thanks! http://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipfix/ipfix-archive%40lists.ietf.org From -diana@absopulse.com Fri Feb 1 06:24:19 2008 Return-Path: <-diana@absopulse.com> X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 316EB28E554 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 06:23:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 85.116 X-Spam-Level: **************************************************************** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=85.116 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DOS_OE_TO_MX=2.75, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP=1.398, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HTML_MESSAGE=1, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_SUB_MEDICAL_NEWS=0.756, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 0.8 FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D Host starts with d-d-d-d * 2.4 HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (IP addr * 1) * 1.4 HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (DHCP) * 1.6 FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D Helo is d-d-d-d * 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 4 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 100] * 20 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist * [URIs: laughsize.com] * 10 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist * [URIs: laughsize.com] * 10 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL blocklist * [URIs: laughsize.com] * 10 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: laughsize.com] * 10 URIBL_SC_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the SC SURBL blocklist * [URIs: laughsize.com] * 1.1 URIBL_RHS_DOB Contains an URI of a new domain (Day Old Bread) * [URIs: laughsize.com] * 2.0 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net * [Blocked - see ] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address * [88.74.24.161 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL * [88.74.24.161 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 0.8 SARE_SUB_MEDICAL_NEWS Spammer subject - medical * 2.0 FM_DDDD_TIMES_2 Dual helo + host eq d_d_d_d * 0.1 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to trusted network by host with * dynamic-looking rDNS * 2.8 DOS_OE_TO_MX Delivered direct to MX with OE headers Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j07zkjmGrMN7 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 06:23:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from dslb-088-074-024-161.pools.arcor-ip.net (dslb-088-074-024-161.pools.arcor-ip.net [88.74.24.161]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D46C293015 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 05:54:54 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000a01c864da$05649cbe$91740897@gtcmq> From: "aloysius burton" <-diana@absopulse.com> To: Subject: ***SPAM*** 85.116 (5) Medical news! Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 12:09:07 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01C864DA.0562CB8A" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C864DA.0562CB8A Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Enter here now to get the bigger and harder baby-maker! ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C864DA.0562CB8A Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Enter here now to get the bigger and = harder baby-maker! ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C864DA.0562CB8A-- From Irene-linjanjo@adsensetrainer.com Fri Feb 1 06:27:28 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC28A294C46 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 06:27:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 91.194 X-Spam-Level: **************************************************************** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=91.194 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DOS_OE_TO_MX=2.75, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_DYNAMIC_SPLIT_IP=3.493, HELO_EQ_IP_ADDR=1.119, HOST_EQ_USERONOCOM=1.444, HTML_MESSAGE=1, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 1.4 HOST_EQ_USERONOCOM HOST_EQ_USERONOCOM * 0.8 FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D Host starts with d-d-d-d * 3.5 HELO_DYNAMIC_SPLIT_IP Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (Split * IP) * 1.1 HELO_EQ_IP_ADDR HELO using IP Address (not private) * 0.9 FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB Host is d-d-d-d * 4.4 HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2 Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (IP addr * 2) * 1.9 TVD_RCVD_IP TVD_RCVD_IP * 2.1 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains an IP address used for HELO * 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 4 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address * [81.184.35.83 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL * [81.184.35.83 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 20 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist * [URIs: bjoogehhy.com] * 10 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist * [URIs: bjoogehhy.com] * 10 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL blocklist * [URIs: bjoogehhy.com] * 10 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: bjoogehhy.com] * 10 URIBL_SC_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the SC SURBL blocklist * [URIs: bjoogehhy.com] * 2.0 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net * [Blocked - see ] * 0.1 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to trusted network by host with * dynamic-looking rDNS * 2.8 DOS_OE_TO_MX Delivered direct to MX with OE headers Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xcyFkdiUgCvh for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 06:27:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from 81.184.35.83.dyn.user.ono.com (81.184.35.83.dyn.user.ono.com [81.184.35.83]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BB10293EA1 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 06:05:10 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000601c864db$ae35b570$5323b851@3cedacff6d74450> From: "Irene Brinkmann" To: ipfix-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: ***SPAM*** 91.194 (5) The end to all your frustration lies here - we have the solution to your woes. Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 15:06:46 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C864E4.0FFA1D70" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 ----------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C864E4.0FFA1D70 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Chicks will be AMAZED by your legendary PROWESS. ----------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C864E4.0FFA1D70 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Chicks will be AMAZED by your = legendary=20 PROWESS. ----------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C864E4.0FFA1D70-- From lettaveb1997@adsensetrainer.com Fri Feb 1 06:38:17 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 240C328C9FC for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 06:38:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 81.194 X-Spam-Level: **************************************************************** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=81.194 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DOS_OE_TO_MX=2.75, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_DYNAMIC_SPLIT_IP=3.493, HELO_EQ_IP_ADDR=1.119, HOST_EQ_USERONOCOM=1.444, HTML_MESSAGE=1, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 1.4 HOST_EQ_USERONOCOM HOST_EQ_USERONOCOM * 0.8 FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D Host starts with d-d-d-d * 3.5 HELO_DYNAMIC_SPLIT_IP Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (Split * IP) * 1.1 HELO_EQ_IP_ADDR HELO using IP Address (not private) * 0.9 FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB Host is d-d-d-d * 4.4 HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2 Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (IP addr * 2) * 1.9 TVD_RCVD_IP TVD_RCVD_IP * 2.1 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains an IP address used for HELO * 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 4 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 100] * 20 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist * [URIs: reiomit.com] * 10 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist * [URIs: reiomit.com] * 10 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL blocklist * [URIs: reiomit.com] * 10 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: reiomit.com] * 2.0 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net * [Blocked - see ] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL * [81.184.35.83 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address * [81.184.35.83 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] * 0.1 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to trusted network by host with * dynamic-looking rDNS * 2.8 DOS_OE_TO_MX Delivered direct to MX with OE headers Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ufj6Q-Ym+mUS for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 06:38:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from 81.184.35.83.dyn.user.ono.com (81.184.35.83.dyn.user.ono.com [81.184.35.83]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3859229516A for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 06:11:29 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001201c864dc$8f997240$5323b851@3cedacff6d74450> From: "Sandeep Gow" To: ipfix-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: ***SPAM*** 81.194 (5) Get a new huge colossal rod by clicking here. Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 15:13:04 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C864E4.F15DDA40" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 ----------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C864E4.F15DDA40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Chicks will be AMAZED by your legendary PROWESS. ----------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C864E4.F15DDA40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Chicks will be AMAZED by your = legendary=20 PROWESS. ----------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C864E4.F15DDA40-- From DesmondsyrupyBooth@dfwairport.com Fri Feb 1 07:20:24 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A89213A6A60; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 07:20:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 17.024 X-Spam-Level: ***************** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=17.024 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, DOS_OE_TO_MX=2.75, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK=3.116, INVALID_MSGID=1.9, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, SARE_MLH_Stock1=0.87, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 0.9 SARE_MLH_Stock1 Subject mentions stock or stock related words * 0.0 STOX_REPLY_TYPE STOX_REPLY_TYPE * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 4 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL * [77.134.49.254 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 1.5 DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX RBL: Envelope sender in * bogusmx.rfc-ignorant.org * 1.9 INVALID_MSGID Message-Id is not valid, according to RFC 2822 * 3.1 FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK Forged mail pretending to be from MS Outlook * 2.8 DOS_OE_TO_MX Delivered direct to MX with OE headers Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hk24BHQH99Sd; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 07:20:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from woodwest1.home (pool-71-187-228-6.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net [71.187.228.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id AA4F628C76A; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 06:56:11 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: 13d901c864e2$ce4c6a00$0201a8c0@woodwest1 From: "Solomon Deleon" To: Subject: ***SPAM*** 17.024 (5) Superstar stock report Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:57:25 +0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 No Looking back on G&S minerals Symbol-GSML Up 4 consecutive days for over 40% in profits and record volume Read the PR, the good news keeps coming. Add GSML to your Radar and watch it like a hawk. This company is going to $3. even if it hits half of projected forcast it would be a phenomenal 1000% profit. No other stock can deliver that in times like this Get in on GSML G&S minerals INC. From asseveratingirsc@cilekmedya.com Fri Feb 1 07:20:37 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02D623A6A87 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 07:20:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 93.172 X-Spam-Level: **************************************************************** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=93.172 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HELO_EQ_NE_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, HOST_EQ_NE_JP=2.599, INVALID_DATE=1.245, OUTLOOK_3416=1.744, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 1.2 HELO_EQ_JP HELO_EQ_JP * 1.3 HOST_EQ_JP HOST_EQ_JP * 2.6 HOST_EQ_NE_JP HOST_EQ_NE_JP * 1.2 HELO_EQ_NE_JP HELO_EQ_NE_JP * 1.2 INVALID_DATE Invalid Date: header (not RFC 2822) * 1.7 OUTLOOK_3416 Claims to be sent by an unusual build of Outlook (3416) * 2.2 TVD_SPACE_RATIO BODY: TVD_SPACE_RATIO * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 100] * 20 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist * [URIs: pokerfast.com] * 10 URIBL_AB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the AB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: pokerfast.com] * 10 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist * [URIs: pokerfast.com] * 10 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL blocklist * [URIs: pokerfast.com] * 10 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: pokerfast.com] * 10 URIBL_SC_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the SC SURBL blocklist * [URIs: pokerfast.com] * 3.0 RCVD_IN_XBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus XBL * [122.29.109.162 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 2.0 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net * [Blocked - see ] * 0.6 RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB RBL: SORBS: sender is a abuseable web server * [122.29.109.162 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fca4hxARwD19 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 07:20:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from p2162-ipbf3303marunouchi.tokyo.ocn.ne.jp (p2162-ipbf3303marunouchi.tokyo.ocn.ne.jp [122.29.109.162]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4072128C683 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 06:57:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from [122.29.109.162] by mail.cilekmedya.com; Fri, 32 Jan 2008 23:59:04 +0900 From: "Millard Simon" To: Subject: ***SPAM*** 93.172 (5) BodypartJumboBurt Date: Fri, 32 Jan 2008 23:59:04 +0900 Message-ID: <02e4fd74$00000004$a26d1d7a@asseveratingirsc> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.2300 Importance: Normal CockMan-sizedChris http://www.pokerfast.com From KermitludwigHorn@wikipedia.org Fri Feb 1 07:21:27 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB1A53A6AAC; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 07:21:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 14.382 X-Spam-Level: ************** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=14.382 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DOS_OE_TO_MX=2.75, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, HTML_MESSAGE=1, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_MLH_Stock1=0.87] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 1.2 HOST_EQ_IT HOST_EQ_IT * 0.6 HELO_EQ_IT HELO_EQ_IT * 0.9 SARE_MLH_Stock1 Subject mentions stock or stock related words * 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 4 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL * [87.15.166.192 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address * [87.15.166.192 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] * 0.1 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to trusted network by host with * dynamic-looking rDNS * 2.8 DOS_OE_TO_MX Delivered direct to MX with OE headers Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WoLb6IWcfke4; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 07:21:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from dompc.homenet.telecomitalia.it (host192-166-dynamic.15-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it [87.15.166.192]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0AE1828C515; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 07:00:13 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <7b6d01c864e3$59e765b0$4201a8c0@dompc> From: "Elvin Navarro" To: Cc: , " =20
We told you to keep = watching, G &=20 S Minerals... Symol : GSML

Gold is reaching = record of $1000/=20 oz ... GSML is the undiscovered gem you should be invested=20 in.

Up 4 straight days with = record=20 volume

If you missed the move = from .13 to .17=20 dont dispair they have not even scratched the surfact.

This company is going to=20 $3.00

So grab yourself = some GSML and=20 earn easy 10 bagger

------=_NextPart_000_7B69_01C864E3.59E765B0-- From ColemanbarbarianChaney@swankyconservative.com Fri Feb 1 09:35:57 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D22E28C1DB; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:35:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 17.024 X-Spam-Level: ***************** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=17.024 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, DOS_OE_TO_MX=2.75, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK=3.116, INVALID_MSGID=1.9, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, SARE_MLH_Stock1=0.87, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 0.9 SARE_MLH_Stock1 Subject mentions stock or stock related words * 0.0 STOX_REPLY_TYPE STOX_REPLY_TYPE * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 4 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL * [77.134.49.254 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 1.5 DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX RBL: Envelope sender in * bogusmx.rfc-ignorant.org * 1.9 INVALID_MSGID Message-Id is not valid, according to RFC 2822 * 3.1 FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK Forged mail pretending to be from MS Outlook * 2.8 DOS_OE_TO_MX Delivered direct to MX with OE headers Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eGZTWK+75NDv; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:35:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from pc.lan (unknown [89.130.118.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6350A28C2E8; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:33:42 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: 5c1e01c864f8$cfd26bc0$4001a8c0@pc From: "Margarito Mcpherson" To: , " X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D59403A698F; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:51:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=1, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vLd-73TRO0Qr; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:51:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66F583A698C; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:51:57 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 209D63A697F; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:51:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id URpAif5jaMVC; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:51:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail171.messagelabs.com (mail171.messagelabs.com [216.82.253.243]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6F8D3A696E; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:51:54 -0800 (PST) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: jloiacon@csc.com X-Msg-Ref: server-15.tower-171.messagelabs.com!1201888406!6281061!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [20.137.2.88] Received: (qmail 16744 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2008 17:53:27 -0000 Received: from amer-mta102.csc.com (HELO amer-mta102.csc.com) (20.137.2.88) by server-15.tower-171.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 1 Feb 2008 17:53:27 -0000 Received: from amer-gw09.amer.csc.com (amer-gw09.amer.csc.com [20.6.39.245]) by amer-mta102.csc.com (Switch-3.3.0/Switch-3.3.0) with ESMTP id m11HtYxQ020637; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:55:34 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20080201012440.88CC210C7AF@bosco.isi.edu> To: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005 From: Joe Loiacono Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:53:19 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on AMER-GW09/SRV/CSC(Release 7.0.2FP1 HF180|March 29, 2007) at 02/01/2008 12:53:32 PM, Serialize complete at 02/01/2008 12:53:32 PM Cc: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org, ipfix@ietf.org, ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: Re: [IPFIX] RFC 5101 on Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of IP Traffic Flow Information X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1748722017==" Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org This is a multipart message in MIME format. --===============1748722017== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 00624360852573E2_=" This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 00624360852573E2_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" I admit I've only kept one eye on this list for a while, so please forgive me, but what does this release mean in terms of vendors. Does this make IPFIX a formal standard that we can expect to be showing up on vendor's devices from now on? Does this need any further approval? Or is this it? Thanks, Joe rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Sent by: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org 01/31/2008 08:24 PM To ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org cc ipfix@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject [IPFIX] RFC 5101 on Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of IP Traffic Flow Information A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 5101 Title: Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of IP Traffic Flow Information Author: B. Claise, Ed. Status: Standards Track Date: January 2008 Mailbox: bclaise@cisco.com Pages: 63 Characters: 147196 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-26.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5101.txt This document specifies the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) protocol that serves for transmitting IP Traffic Flow information over the network. In order to transmit IP Traffic Flow information from an Exporting Process to an information Collecting Process, a common representation of flow data and a standard means of communicating them is required. This document describes how the IPFIX Data and Template Records are carried over a number of transport protocols from an IPFIX Exporting Process to an IPFIX Collecting Process. [STANDARDS TRACK] This document is a product of the IP Flow Information Export Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.Please refer to the current edition of the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list. Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list should be sent to IETF-REQUEST@IETF.ORG. Requests to be added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should be sent to RFC-DIST-REQUEST@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending an EMAIL message to rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG with the message body help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example: To: rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG Subject: getting rfcs help: ways_to_get_rfcs Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to RFC-Manager@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to RFC-EDITOR@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC Authors, for further information. The RFC Editor Team USC/Information Sciences Institute ... _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix --=_alternative 00624360852573E2_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
I admit I've only kept one eye on this list for a while, so please forgive me, but what does this release mean in terms of vendors. Does this make IPFIX a formal standard that we can expect to be showing up on vendor's devices from now on? Does this need any further approval? Or is this it?

Thanks,

Joe


rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Sent by: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org

01/31/2008 08:24 PM

To
ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
cc
ipfix@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject
[IPFIX] RFC 5101 on Specification of the IP Flow Information Export        (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of IP Traffic Flow Information






A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.

       
       RFC 5101

       Title:      Specification of the IP Flow
                   Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the
                   Exchange of IP Traffic Flow Information
       Author:     B. Claise, Ed.
       Status:     Standards Track
       Date:       January 2008
       Mailbox:    bclaise@cisco.com
       Pages:      63
       Characters: 147196
       Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso:   None

       I-D Tag:    draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-26.txt

       URL:        http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5101.txt

This document specifies the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
protocol that serves for transmitting IP Traffic Flow information over
the network.  In order to transmit IP Traffic Flow information from an
Exporting Process to an information Collecting Process, a common
representation of flow data and a standard means of communicating them
is required.  This document describes how the IPFIX Data and Template
Records are carried over a number of transport protocols from an IPFIX
Exporting Process to an IPFIX Collecting Process.  [STANDARDS TRACK]

This document is a product of the IP Flow Information Export
Working Group of the IETF.

This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol.

STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track
protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions
for improvements.Please refer to the current edition of the Internet
Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and
status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list.
Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list
should be sent to IETF-REQUEST@IETF.ORG.  Requests to be
added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should
be sent to RFC-DIST-REQUEST@RFC-EDITOR.ORG.

Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending
an EMAIL message to rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG with the message body

help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example:

       To: rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG
       Subject: getting rfcs

       help: ways_to_get_rfcs

Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
author of the RFC in question, or to RFC-Manager@RFC-EDITOR.ORG.  Unless
specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
unlimited distribution.

Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to
RFC-EDITOR@RFC-EDITOR.ORG.  Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC
Authors, for further information.


The RFC Editor Team
USC/Information Sciences Institute

...


_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
IPFIX@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
--=_alternative 00624360852573E2_=-- --===============1748722017== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix --===============1748722017==-- From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Fri Feb 1 09:51:58 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D59403A698F; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:51:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=1, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vLd-73TRO0Qr; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:51:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66F583A698C; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:51:57 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 209D63A697F; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:51:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id URpAif5jaMVC; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:51:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail171.messagelabs.com (mail171.messagelabs.com [216.82.253.243]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6F8D3A696E; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:51:54 -0800 (PST) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: jloiacon@csc.com X-Msg-Ref: server-15.tower-171.messagelabs.com!1201888406!6281061!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [20.137.2.88] Received: (qmail 16744 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2008 17:53:27 -0000 Received: from amer-mta102.csc.com (HELO amer-mta102.csc.com) (20.137.2.88) by server-15.tower-171.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 1 Feb 2008 17:53:27 -0000 Received: from amer-gw09.amer.csc.com (amer-gw09.amer.csc.com [20.6.39.245]) by amer-mta102.csc.com (Switch-3.3.0/Switch-3.3.0) with ESMTP id m11HtYxQ020637; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:55:34 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20080201012440.88CC210C7AF@bosco.isi.edu> To: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005 From: Joe Loiacono Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:53:19 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on AMER-GW09/SRV/CSC(Release 7.0.2FP1 HF180|March 29, 2007) at 02/01/2008 12:53:32 PM, Serialize complete at 02/01/2008 12:53:32 PM Cc: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org, ipfix@ietf.org, ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: Re: [IPFIX] RFC 5101 on Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of IP Traffic Flow Information X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1748722017==" Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org This is a multipart message in MIME format. --===============1748722017== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 00624360852573E2_=" This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 00624360852573E2_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" I admit I've only kept one eye on this list for a while, so please forgive me, but what does this release mean in terms of vendors. Does this make IPFIX a formal standard that we can expect to be showing up on vendor's devices from now on? Does this need any further approval? Or is this it? Thanks, Joe rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Sent by: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org 01/31/2008 08:24 PM To ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org cc ipfix@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject [IPFIX] RFC 5101 on Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of IP Traffic Flow Information A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 5101 Title: Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of IP Traffic Flow Information Author: B. Claise, Ed. Status: Standards Track Date: January 2008 Mailbox: bclaise@cisco.com Pages: 63 Characters: 147196 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-26.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5101.txt This document specifies the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) protocol that serves for transmitting IP Traffic Flow information over the network. In order to transmit IP Traffic Flow information from an Exporting Process to an information Collecting Process, a common representation of flow data and a standard means of communicating them is required. This document describes how the IPFIX Data and Template Records are carried over a number of transport protocols from an IPFIX Exporting Process to an IPFIX Collecting Process. [STANDARDS TRACK] This document is a product of the IP Flow Information Export Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.Please refer to the current edition of the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list. Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list should be sent to IETF-REQUEST@IETF.ORG. Requests to be added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should be sent to RFC-DIST-REQUEST@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending an EMAIL message to rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG with the message body help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example: To: rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG Subject: getting rfcs help: ways_to_get_rfcs Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to RFC-Manager@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to RFC-EDITOR@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC Authors, for further information. The RFC Editor Team USC/Information Sciences Institute ... _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix --=_alternative 00624360852573E2_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
I admit I've only kept one eye on this list for a while, so please forgive me, but what does this release mean in terms of vendors. Does this make IPFIX a formal standard that we can expect to be showing up on vendor's devices from now on? Does this need any further approval? Or is this it?

Thanks,

Joe


rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Sent by: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org

01/31/2008 08:24 PM

To
ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
cc
ipfix@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject
[IPFIX] RFC 5101 on Specification of the IP Flow Information Export        (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of IP Traffic Flow Information






A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.

       
       RFC 5101

       Title:      Specification of the IP Flow
                   Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the
                   Exchange of IP Traffic Flow Information
       Author:     B. Claise, Ed.
       Status:     Standards Track
       Date:       January 2008
       Mailbox:    bclaise@cisco.com
       Pages:      63
       Characters: 147196
       Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso:   None

       I-D Tag:    draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-26.txt

       URL:        http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5101.txt

This document specifies the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
protocol that serves for transmitting IP Traffic Flow information over
the network.  In order to transmit IP Traffic Flow information from an
Exporting Process to an information Collecting Process, a common
representation of flow data and a standard means of communicating them
is required.  This document describes how the IPFIX Data and Template
Records are carried over a number of transport protocols from an IPFIX
Exporting Process to an IPFIX Collecting Process.  [STANDARDS TRACK]

This document is a product of the IP Flow Information Export
Working Group of the IETF.

This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol.

STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track
protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions
for improvements.Please refer to the current edition of the Internet
Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and
status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list.
Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list
should be sent to IETF-REQUEST@IETF.ORG.  Requests to be
added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should
be sent to RFC-DIST-REQUEST@RFC-EDITOR.ORG.

Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending
an EMAIL message to rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG with the message body

help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example:

       To: rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG
       Subject: getting rfcs

       help: ways_to_get_rfcs

Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
author of the RFC in question, or to RFC-Manager@RFC-EDITOR.ORG.  Unless
specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
unlimited distribution.

Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to
RFC-EDITOR@RFC-EDITOR.ORG.  Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC
Authors, for further information.


The RFC Editor Team
USC/Information Sciences Institute

...


_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
IPFIX@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
--=_alternative 00624360852573E2_=-- --===============1748722017== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix --===============1748722017==-- From elaineg@johnsondiversey.com Fri Feb 1 09:52:40 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F59A3A698F for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:52:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 36.068 X-Spam-Level: ************************************ X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=36.068 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP=1.398, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 0.8 FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D Host starts with d-d-d-d * 2.4 HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (IP addr * 1) * 1.4 HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (DHCP) * 1.6 FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D Helo is d-d-d-d * 0.0 NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP URI: Uses a dotted-decimal IP address in URL * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address * [88.74.115.22 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL * [88.74.115.22 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 10 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist * [URIs: 92.114.161.153] * 10 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL blocklist * [URIs: 92.114.161.153] * 2.0 FM_DDDD_TIMES_2 Dual helo + host eq d_d_d_d * 0.1 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to trusted network by host with * dynamic-looking rDNS Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ygE3BNTShjSZ for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:52:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from dslb-088-074-115-022.pools.arcor-ip.net (dslb-088-074-115-022.pools.arcor-ip.net [88.74.115.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id BE88D3A6982 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:52:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from [132.67.132.165] (helo=dakfr) by dslb-088-074-115-022.pools.arcor-ip.net with smtp (Exim 4.62 (FreeBSD)) id 1JL09Y-0006g5-7q; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 18:57:32 +0100 Message-ID: <47A35CD8.2070107@johnsondiversey.com> Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 18:54:32 +0100 From: User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ipfix-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: ***SPAM*** 36.068 (5) Love Is... Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Falling In Love with You http://92.114.161.153/ From GeorgiafriedmanSnell@amcnarragansett.org Fri Feb 1 12:17:46 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EEE53A695B; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:17:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 25.807 X-Spam-Level: ************************* X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=25.807 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DOS_OE_TO_MX=2.75, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK=3.116, HELO_LH_HOME=3.714, INVALID_MSGID=1.9, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 3.7 HELO_LH_HOME HELO_LH_HOME * 1.5 FH_RELAY_NODNS We could not determine your Reverse DNS * 0.0 STOX_REPLY_TYPE STOX_REPLY_TYPE * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 4 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 100] * 2.0 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net * [Blocked - see ] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address * [190.24.62.12 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL * [190.24.62.12 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 3.0 RCVD_IN_XBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus XBL * 0.1 RDNS_NONE Delivered to trusted network by a host with no rDNS * 1.9 INVALID_MSGID Message-Id is not valid, according to RFC 2822 * 3.1 FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK Forged mail pretending to be from MS Outlook * 2.8 DOS_OE_TO_MX Delivered direct to MX with OE headers Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R0xetddaRubb; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:17:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from janmir.star.com.pe (unknown [200.107.150.111]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 26E5C3A6994; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:17:44 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: 6116501c8650f$b669f010$6f966bc8@janmir From: "Claudia Snell" To: , " X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 398123A693D; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:21:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 24.046 X-Spam-Level: ************************ X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=24.046 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=0.992, DOS_OE_TO_MX=2.75, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK=3.116, HTML_MESSAGE=1, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_MLH_Stock7=1.66] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 0.8 FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D Host starts with d-d-d-d * 0.9 FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB Host is d-d-d-d * 1.7 SARE_MLH_Stock7 Various common stock subjects * 1.0 DATE_IN_PAST_12_24 Date: is 12 to 24 hours before Received: date * 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 4 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address * [216.160.94.66 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] * 2.0 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net * [Blocked - see ] * 3.0 RCVD_IN_XBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus XBL * [216.160.94.66 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL * 0.1 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to trusted network by host with * dynamic-looking rDNS * 3.1 FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK Forged mail pretending to be from MS Outlook * 2.8 DOS_OE_TO_MX Delivered direct to MX with OE headers Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uzcTmGY0zHPu; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:21:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mohamedbb468ca.gateway.2wire.net (216-160-94-66.tukw.qwest.net [216.160.94.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C6B6B3A696E; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:20:24 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <155f501c86510$1bab6a80$4200a8c0@mohamedbb468ca> From: "Minnie Winston" To: Cc: , " =20
We told you to keep = watching, G &=20 S Minerals... Symol : GSML

Gold is reaching = record of $1000/=20 oz ... GSML is the undiscovered gem you should be invested=20 in.

Up 4 straight days with = record=20 volume

If you missed the move = from .13 to .17=20 dont dispair they have not even scratched the surfact.

This company is going to=20 $3.00

So grab yourself = some GSML and=20 earn easy 10 bagger

------=_NextPart_000_155F1_01C86510.1BAB6A80-- From raliehca2000@aleph-hk.com Fri Feb 1 12:58:36 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CAD53A6932 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:58:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 99.68 X-Spam-Level: **************************************************************** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=99.68 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DOS_OE_TO_MX=2.75, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_VERIZON_P=2.144, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HELO_EQ_VERIZON_POOL=1.495, HTML_MESSAGE=1, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 2.1 FH_HOST_EQ_VERIZON_P Host is pool-.+verizon.net * 0.8 FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D Host starts with d-d-d-d * 1.1 HELO_EQ_DSL HELO_EQ_DSL * 2.4 HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (IP addr * 1) * 1.5 HELO_EQ_VERIZON_POOL HELO_EQ_VERIZON_POOL * 1.6 FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D Helo is d-d-d-d * 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 4 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 100] * 20 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist * [URIs: coupmes.com] * 10 URIBL_AB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the AB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: coupmes.com] * 10 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist * [URIs: coupmes.com] * 10 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL blocklist * [URIs: coupmes.com] * 10 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: coupmes.com] * 10 URIBL_SC_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the SC SURBL blocklist * [URIs: coupmes.com] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address * [71.98.46.87 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL * [71.98.46.87 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 3.0 RCVD_IN_XBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus XBL * 2.0 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net * [Blocked - see ] * 2.0 FM_DDDD_TIMES_2 Dual helo + host eq d_d_d_d * 0.1 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to trusted network by host with * dynamic-looking rDNS * 2.8 DOS_OE_TO_MX Delivered direct to MX with OE headers Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jntyf1ozHNAg for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:58:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from pool-71-98-46-87.gdrpwi.dsl-w.verizon.net (pool-71-98-46-87.gdrpwi.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.98.46.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DA9A3A688A for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:58:33 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000701c86515$70ebcf80$572e6247@lawman> From: "Zeljko henneberque" To: ipfix-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: ***SPAM*** 99.68 (5) Your hot dates are set to get HOTTER. Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 15:00:14 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C864E3.26515F80" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080201-1, 02/01/2008), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean ----------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C864E3.26515F80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ever wanted a GIANT ROD? Click here for one. ----------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C864E3.26515F80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ever wanted a GIANT ROD? Click here = for=20 one. ----------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C864E3.26515F80-- From liettxet2007@MESSA.ORG Fri Feb 1 14:11:32 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A434F3A6988 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 14:11:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 89.206 X-Spam-Level: **************************************************************** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=89.206 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DOS_OE_TO_MX=2.75, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HELO_EQ_PL=1.135, HOST_EQ_PL=1.95, HTML_MESSAGE=1, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 1.9 HOST_EQ_PL HOST_EQ_PL * 1.1 HELO_EQ_PL HELO_EQ_PL * 1.1 HELO_EQ_DSL HELO_EQ_DSL * 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 4 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 100] * 10 URIBL_AB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the AB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: otieumu.com] * 10 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist * [URIs: otieumu.com] * 10 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL blocklist * [URIs: otieumu.com] * 10 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: otieumu.com] * 10 URIBL_SC_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the SC SURBL blocklist * [URIs: otieumu.com] * 20 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist * [URIs: otieumu.com] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address * [83.6.59.244 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] * 2.0 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net * [Blocked - see ] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL * [83.6.59.244 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 2.8 DOS_OE_TO_MX Delivered direct to MX with OE headers Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JLqEDA5S0SGC for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 14:11:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from aavz244.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl (aavz244.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl [83.6.59.244]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47DBF3A63CA for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 14:11:29 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000801c8651f$9e643ce0$f43b0653@paulinka> From: "Trevon Koskenalho" To: ipfix-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: ***SPAM*** 89.206 (5) Amaze your chick with your new legendary manhood. Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 23:13:05 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C86528.0028A4E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 ----------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C86528.0028A4E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Make your own home sex video, and show off your new big schlong to the = world. ----------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C86528.0028A4E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Make your own home sex video, and = show off=20 your new big schlong to the world. ----------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C86528.0028A4E0-- From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Sun Feb 3 12:18:43 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5464E3A6D45; Sun, 3 Feb 2008 12:18:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jf8qrkjNyHGG; Sun, 3 Feb 2008 12:18:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A14023A6D09; Sun, 3 Feb 2008 12:18:39 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 221FD3A6C78 for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2008 12:18:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0MclMhLCfpfK for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2008 12:18:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (moe.its.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.12.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C67CC3A6D06 for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2008 12:15:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 133BE4804DF for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:17:27 +1300 (NZDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mailhost.auckland.ac.nz Received: from mailhost.auckland.ac.nz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (moe.its.auckland.ac.nz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZUKvHEW6sE-f for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:17:26 +1300 (NZDT) Received: from motoko.itss.auckland.ac.nz (motoko.itss.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.191.146]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDF314804CF for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:17:26 +1300 (NZDT) Received: from motoko.itss.auckland.ac.nz (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by motoko.itss.auckland.ac.nz (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m13KHQZB009962 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:17:26 +1300 Received: (from apache@localhost) by motoko.itss.auckland.ac.nz (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m13KHQ87009961 for ipfix@ietf.org; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:17:26 +1300 X-Authentication-Warning: motoko.itss.auckland.ac.nz: apache set sender to nevil@auckland.ac.nz using -f Received: from nebbiolo.itss.auckland.ac.nz (nebbiolo.itss.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.76.33]) by webmail.auckland.ac.nz (Horde MIME library) with HTTP; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:17:26 +1300 Message-ID: <20080204091726.8wwk5zrgzs40gkcw@webmail.auckland.ac.nz> Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:17:26 +1300 From: Nevil Brownlee To: ipfix@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.0.4) Subject: Re: [IPFIX] RFC 5101 on Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of IP Traffic Flow Information X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascFrom ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Sun Feb 3 12:18:43 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5464E3A6D45; Sun, 3 Feb 2008 12:18:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jf8qrkjNyHGG; Sun, 3 Feb 2008 12:18:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A14023A6D09; Sun, 3 Feb 2008 12:18:39 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 221FD3A6C78 for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2008 12:18:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0MclMhLCfpfK for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2008 12:18:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (moe.its.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.12.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C67CC3A6D06 for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2008 12:15:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 133BE4804DF for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:17:27 +1300 (NZDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mailhost.auckland.ac.nz Received: from mailhost.auckland.ac.nz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (moe.its.auckland.ac.nz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZUKvHEW6sE-f for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:17:26 +1300 (NZDT) Received: from motoko.itss.auckland.ac.nz (motoko.itss.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.191.146]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDF314804CF for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:17:26 +1300 (NZDT) Received: from motoko.itss.auckland.ac.nz (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by motoko.itss.auckland.ac.nz (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m13KHQZB009962 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:17:26 +1300 Received: (from apache@localhost) by motoko.itss.auckland.ac.nz (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m13KHQ87009961 for ipfix@ietf.org; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:17:26 +1300 X-Authentication-Warning: motoko.itss.auckland.ac.nz: apache set sender to nevil@auckland.ac.nz using -f Received: from nebbiolo.itss.auckland.ac.nz (nebbiolo.itss.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.76.33]) by webmail.auckland.ac.nz (Horde MIME library) with HTTP; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:17:26 +1300 Message-ID: <20080204091726.8wwk5zrgzs40gkcw@webmail.auckland.ac.nz> Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:17:26 +1300 From: Nevil Brownlee To: ipfix@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.0.4) Subject: Re: [IPFIX] RFC 5101 on Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of IP Traffic Flow Information X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Hi Joe: > I admit I've only kept one eye on this list for a while, so please forgive > me, but what does this release mean in terms of vendors. Does this make > IPFIX a formal standard that we can expect to be showing up on vendor's > devices from now on? Does this need any further approval? Or is this it? > > Thanks, > > Joe RFCs 5101, 5102 and 5103 are the three Standards-Track RFCs that define IPFIX 'on the wire.' There are quite a few more IPFIX drafts either in the RFC Editor queue or still being worked through, so the WG certainly isn't done yet! However, this publication should mean that vendors can go ahead and implement it in their devices - I trust that will start to happen real soon now. Also, congratulations to all those who've worked so hard (and for so long) to see these three RFCs published :-) Cheers, Nevil Brownlee (IPFIX co-chair) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Nevil Brownlee Computer Science Department | ITS Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x88941 The University of Auckland FAX: +64 9 373 7453 Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through University of Auckland http://www.auckland.ac.nz _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix ii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Hi Joe: > I admit I've only kept one eye on this list for a while, so please forgive > me, but what does this release mean in terms of vendors. Does this make > IPFIX a formal standard that we can expect to be showing up on vendor's > devices from now on? Does this need any further approval? Or is this it? > > Thanks, > > Joe RFCs 5101, 5102 and 5103 are the three Standards-Track RFCs that define IPFIX 'on the wire.' There are quite a few more IPFIX drafts either in the RFC Editor queue or still being worked through, so the WG certainly isn't done yet! However, this publication should mean that vendors can go ahead and implement it in their devices - I trust that will start to happen real soon now. Also, congratulations to all those who've worked so hard (and for so long) to see these three RFCs published :-) Cheers, Nevil Brownlee (IPFIX co-chair) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Nevil Brownlee Computer Science Department | ITS Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x88941 The University of Auckland FAX: +64 9 373 7453 Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through University of Auckland http://www.auckland.ac.nz _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix From obrutsam@actlosangeles.com Tue Feb 5 10:34:26 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipfix-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@mail.ietf.org Received: by mail.ietf.org (Postfix, from userid 51) id 18C653A7493; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:52:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from cpe-71-65-57-13.insight.res.rr.com (cpe-71-65-57-13.insight.res.rr.com [71.65.57.13]) by mail.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A41B23A7F12 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 19:03:57 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000a01c867a3$ed5a2fe0$0d394147@here8f2fe5e914> From: "Dezhi Hronsky" To: ipfix-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: Realize all your partner's sexual dreams. click here Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 22:05:13 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C8677A.048427E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 ----------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C8677A.048427E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable P3nis enlargement is now a medical certainty, click here. ----------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C8677A.048427E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable P3nis enlargement is now a medical = certainty,=20 click here. ----------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C8677A.048427E0-- From locimahc@ablc.fr Tue Feb 5 10:34:27 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipfix-archive@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@mail.ietf.org Received: by mail.ietf.org (Postfix, from userid 51) id 49DB83A908F; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:52:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from host-84-221-81-28.cust-adsl.tiscali.it (host-84-221-81-28.cust-adsl.tiscali.it [84.221.81.28]) by mail.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69C1F28CA5E for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 06:10:15 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000d01c86801$11adfbd0$1c51dd54@matteo1> From: "perron Colon" To: ipfix-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: Want to be well hung, with a thick, muscular tool? Now you can Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 15:11:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C86809.737263D0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 ----------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C86809.737263D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Don't envy others when you can now also increase your manhood the = natural way ----------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C86809.737263D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Don't envy others when you can = now also=20 increase your manhood the natural way ----------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C86809.737263D0-- From fordedsqb4@ukida.com Tue Feb 5 10:35:04 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipfix-archive@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@mail.ietf.org Received: by mail.ietf.org (Postfix, from userid 51) id DBB9B3A8E72; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:52:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from LAubervilliers-153-52-5-4.w217-128.abo.wanadoo.fr (LAubervilliers-153-52-5-4.w217-128.abo.wanadoo.fr [217.128.100.4]) by mail.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EAEE3A8E3A for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 00:09:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from [217.128.100.4] by 1063069002.pamx1.hotmail.com; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 09:11:33 +0100 From: "Williams Horne" To: Subject: ProdigiousDickAnthony Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 09:11:33 +0100 Message-ID: <01c867d7$19e31080$046480d9@fordedsqb4> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4115 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal GuadalupeFull-sizeDick http://www.tiffuest.com From comade@gigamajig.com Tue Feb 5 10:38:08 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipfix-archive@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@mail.ietf.org Received: by mail.ietf.org (Postfix, from userid 51) id 59BDD3A74F1; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:46:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from [64.53.121.172] (unknown [64.53.121.172]) by mail.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2892E28D92B for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 09:48:42 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001001c8681f$90531ce0$ac793540@skien> From: "dermont Mujezinovic" To: ipfix-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: confino Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 11:50:15 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C867ED.45B8ACE0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 ----------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C867ED.45B8ACE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Be ready for 14th of feb. luv each other on val day ----------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C867ED.45B8ACE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Be ready for 14th of feb.
luv each other on val = day ----------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C867ED.45B8ACE0-- From HeathfurlWhitaker@rollingstone.com Tue Feb 5 10:42:53 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipfix-archive@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@mail.ietf.org Received: by mail.ietf.org (Postfix, from userid 51) id 4E6593A79DF; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:52:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from teresad4fh6ebz.myhome.westell.com (pool-71-167-75-207.nycmny.east.verizon.net [71.167.75.207]) by mail.ietf.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B83693A7B2D; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 17:50:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from culpa by rollingstone.com with SMTP id WLKJWbJf22 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 20:51:38 +0500 From: "Demetrius Wolf" To: , Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 17:50:25 -0800 (PST) After thatit's only fun and winning. We pay you to play. Relax and have fun with poker, blackjack, roulette, progressive video slots at your own leisure from your couch. Our safe, secure games will get you smiling when you start seeing dollars pouring in. http://beartf.cn/ From RobbiedishevelDominguez@luminous-landscape.com Tue Feb 5 10:43:21 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipfix-archive@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@mail.ietf.org Received: by mail.ietf.org (Postfix, from userid 51) id CBD493A6821; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:53:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from usersb8bff10ff.lan (unknown [190.56.116.155]) by mail.ietf.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4E9DF3A7B66; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 17:54:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <389901c86828$8a283310$0301a8c0@usersb8bff10ff> From: "Efrain Wolf" To: , =20
If you have your own = business and=20 need IMMEDIATE money to spend ANY way you like or require Extra money to = give=20 your company a boost or require A low interest loan - NO STRINGS=20 ATTACHED!
=20
Don't worry about = approval... your=20 credit score will not disqualify you!
=20
http://beartb.com.cn/
------=_NextPart_000_3895_01C86828.8A283310-- From jrassoc@snet.net Tue Feb 5 10:45:26 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipfix-archive@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@mail.ietf.org Received: by mail.ietf.org (Postfix, from userid 51) id 9D1973A69C9; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:52:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from gateway.iiap.res.in (gateway.iiap.res.in [124.30.128.132]) by mail.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1072C3A8109 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 19:30:58 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000501c867a7$052a4d5f$4df5d6b3@jxswl> From: "julian friedrich" To: Subject: Looking for the best pricein medz? Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 01:45:07 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0002_01C867A7.05272E42" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C867A7.05272E42 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =09The meds you need, reliable and hassle free!=20 =09Top products of top brands. Low pricing, discounts, flawless customer = support. =09Millions of customers just can't be wrong! =09thusstill.com =09 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C867A7.05272E42 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=09

The meds = you need, reliable and hassle free!
=09Top products of top brands. Low pricing, discounts, flawless customer = support.
=20 =09Millions of customers just can't be wrong!

=09 =09
------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C867A7.05272E42-- From MargodartSheets@bgmod.com Tue Feb 5 10:45:36 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipfix-archive@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@mail.ietf.org Received: by mail.ietf.org (Postfix, from userid 51) id 916BF3A6D3F; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:37:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from rick2ec185231a.home (pool-96-233-68-213.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [96.233.68.213]) by mail.ietf.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CDA503A9A60; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 03:24:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from cauliflower by bgmod.com with SMTP id 7YXIK9cbXF for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 06:21:44 +0500 From: "Jodie Woody" To: , Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 03:24:05 -0800 (PST) Get $2400 you download our casino. $2400 welcome bonus will be deposited in your new casino account! $2400 welcome bonus will be deposited in your new casino account! Get to know your new casino home! http://bearth.net.cn/ From MorrissecretariatShelton@theautochannel.com Tue Feb 5 10:49:31 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipfix-archive@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@mail.ietf.org Received: by mail.ietf.org (Postfix, from userid 51) id E31603A6F34; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:37:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from clonplusultra.lan (unknown [201.245.240.48]) by mail.ietf.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A36FC3A7575; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 15:37:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from godlike by theautochannel.com with SMTP id rPeoTGTI6N for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 18:38:54 +0500 From: "Ken Caldwell" To: Subject: How about a $2400 welcome bonus Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20080204233748.A36FC3A7575@mail.ietf.org> Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 15:37:48 -0800 (PST) Huge progressive jackpots, slots, multi-hand, and single-hand blackjack. After thatit's only fun and winning. We're serious about fun. After thatit's only fun and winning. http://flybza.com.cn/ From michael@robertleonard.jp Tue Feb 5 10:50:16 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipfix-archive@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@mail.ietf.org Received: by mail.ietf.org (Postfix, from userid 51) id 1CEBE3A6A9F; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:43:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from adsl-215-207-253.aep.bellsouth.net (adsl-215-207-253.aep.bellsouth.net [68.215.207.253]) by mail.ietf.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5D8ED3A88AE for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 22:30:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from tct ([42.177.94.36]) by adsl-215-207-253.aep.bellsouth.net (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id m156advw079134; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 22:36:39 -0800 Message-ID: <002d01c867c0$de76f9a0$245eb12a@tct> From: To: Subject: A Dream is a Wish Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 22:32:24 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="windows-1250"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4029.2901 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4029.2901 The Time for Love http://98.193.18.226/ From IvantumultuousGraves@transmission.cc Tue Feb 5 10:51:30 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipfix-archive@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@mail.ietf.org Received: by mail.ietf.org (Postfix, from userid 51) id 593333A6ABE; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:52:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from lino.lan (unknown [190.166.86.64]) by mail.ietf.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B407B28D3AA; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 08:14:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from maloney by transmission.cc with SMTP id fxMx3eNw75 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 17:16:09 -0100 From: "Clifton Graves" To: Subject: USA players too! Download and GO! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20080205161456.B407B28D3AA@mail.ietf.org> Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 08:14:56 -0800 (PST) Download our casino in 20 seconds to get $2400 richer when you join. Your own privater Vegas! After thatit's only fun and winning. Travel no further than your screen and get your free $2400 http://beartj.com.cn/ From _oconee@actlosangeles.com Tue Feb 5 11:00:19 2008 Return-Path: <_oconee@actlosangeles.com> X-Original-To: ipfix-archive@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@mail.ietf.org Received: by mail.ietf.org (Postfix, from userid 51) id 604603A6DDF; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:37:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from cpe-71-65-57-13.insight.res.rr.com (cpe-71-65-57-13.insight.res.rr.com [71.65.57.13]) by mail.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11D133A7F1D for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 19:04:49 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001201c867a4$0caf1f40$0d394147@here8f2fe5e914> From: "Izzy haataja" <_oconee@actlosangeles.com> To: ipfix-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: Never hear a single complaint about your small weener ever again. Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 22:06:06 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C8677A.23D91740" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 ----------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C8677A.23D91740 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Realize all your partner's sexual dreams. click here ----------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C8677A.23D91740 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Realize all your partner's sexual = dreams.=20 click here ----------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C8677A.23D91740-- From jutwwwfzdis@wwwfz.com Tue Feb 5 11:03:08 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipfix-archive@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@mail.ietf.org Received: by mail.ietf.org (Postfix, from userid 51) id 088A73A7F70; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:43:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from 54.subnet125-163-78.speedy.telkom.net.id (unknown [125.163.78.54]) by mail.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51E403A8A74; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 23:08:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from [125.163.78.54] by mail.wwwfz.com; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 14:12:13 +0700 Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 14:12:13 +0700 From: "Dudley Harding" X-Mailer: The Bat! (v3.71.01) Home Reply-To: jutwwwfzdis@wwwfz.com X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <608818590.13514136486148@wwwfz.com> To: idmr-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: Customer alert! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear client! We let you know, that you have 7 new messages to read in your letter-box. Please, check them this way: http://foreigngals.info/?idAff=35 Best regards to you, Administration. From FannienimbleMurdock@strassmann.com Tue Feb 5 11:03:29 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipfix-archive@lists.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@mail.ietf.org Received: by mail.ietf.org (Postfix, from userid 51) id 397DE3A6916; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:37:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from usuari55182da8.mundor.com (cm36021.red.mundo-r.com [213.60.36.21]) by mail.ietf.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1FF693A8F79; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 00:42:53 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <5e79d01c863e7$dff5eb10$15243cd5@usuari55182da8> From: "Kristine Albright" To: Cc: , =20
If you have your own = business and=20 want IMMEDIATE ready money to spend ANY way you like or need Extra money = to=20 give the business a boost or want A low interest loan - NO STRINGS=20 ATTACHED!
=20
Don't worry about = approval... your=20 credit score will not disqualify you!
=20
http://beartc.com.cn/
------=_NextPart_000_5E799_01C863E7.DFF5EB10-- From location1995@ablc.fr Tue Feb 5 11:04:55 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipfix-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@mail.ietf.org Received: by mail.ietf.org (Postfix, from userid 51) id 911B33A6E8C; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:52:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from host-84-221-81-28.cust-adsl.tiscali.it (host-84-221-81-28.cust-adsl.tiscali.it [84.221.81.28]) by mail.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3442728CA28 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 06:08:55 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000b01c86800$e20164d0$1c51dd54@matteo1> From: "Braden Naling" To: ipfix-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: Increase your pen1s size naturally with enlargement pills made from 100% herbal ingredients Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 15:10:38 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C86809.43C5CCD0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 ----------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C86809.43C5CCD0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Increase your pen1s size naturally with enlargement pills made from 100% = herbal ingredients ----------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C86809.43C5CCD0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Increase your pen1s size naturally = with=20 enlargement pills made from 100% herbal ingredients ----------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C86809.43C5CCD0-- From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Fri Feb 8 00:05:58 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E77E628C1B3; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 00:05:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.09 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.09 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265] Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6+Qhm8pA1Ihh; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 00:05:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01F9928C0FE; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 00:05:49 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 447DE3A6A5B for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 00:05:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AkRVRFKzPpHb for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 00:05:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from tama50.ecl.ntt.co.jp (tama50.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.39.147]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3379728C167 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 00:01:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mfs5.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (mfs5.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.39.144]) by tama50.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m1883G2f012934; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 17:03:16 +0900 (JST) Received: from mfs5.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mfs5.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id E21396A55; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 17:03:16 +0900 (JST) Received: from eclscan2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (eclscan2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.5.68]) by mfs5.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA50F6A4F; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 17:03:16 +0900 (JST) Received: from eclscan2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eclscan2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1883GPl002573; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 17:03:16 +0900 (JST) Received: from imm.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (imm0.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.5.151]) by eclscan2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1883GG4002570; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 17:03:16 +0900 (JST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([129.60.80.56]) by imm.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1883FQi006399; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 17:03:15 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <47AC0CB4.9090801@lab.ntt.co.jp> Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 17:03:00 +0900 From: Hitoshi Irino Organization: NTT User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Trammell References: <20080110230320.55EC.AKOBA@nttv6.net> In-Reply-To: <20080110230320.55EC.AKOBA@nttv6.net> Cc: ipfix@ietf.org Subject: Re: [IPFIX] draft-ietf-ipfix-file-00 X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Hello Brian, I read this draft. These are my comments. 1: I think it is better to change the name "IPFIX File Writer" to "IPFIX File Writing Process" and "IPFIX File Reader" to "IPFIX File Reading Process". Because, Terminology of IPFIX File Writer and Reader defines these are processes. IPFIX File Reader: An IPFIX File Reader is a Process which reads IPFIX Files from a filesystem, IPFIX File Writer: An IPFIX File Writer is a process which writes IPFIX Files to a filesystem, I am reminded of IPFIX Device from the word "Writer" and "Reader". I use the word "IPFIX File Writing Process" instead of "IPFIX File Writer", "IPFIX File Reading Process" instead of "IPFIX File Reader" in following sentence of this mail. 2: I think it is useful to define "Writing Process" and "Reading Process" which are broader concept of "IPFIX File Writing Process" and "IPFIX File Reading Process". "Writing Process" writes the IPFIX Messages to any storage such as file system, database with any format. "Reading Process" reads the IPFIX Messages from any storage such as file system, database with any format. For example, when someone want to implement format converter which converts from any proprietary format (e.g. NetFlow v5) to IPFIX File Format. The converter contains "Reading Process" and "IPFIX File Writer". Definition of "Writing Process" and "Storing Process" in draft-kobayashi-ipfix-mediator-model-01 are almost same. It is better that they should be merged, I think. (2008/01/11 10:37), Kobayashi Atsushi wrote: > Dear Brian, > > I checked your draft in less time. I confirmed that ipfix file is useful > for compatibility and testing. This format makes easily me try to > implement file writer and reader. To clarify your draft and improve my > understanding, I write down several comments, as follows. > > Q1 > I think that main part of this document is section 3,7. > This draft has many tips. But, from viewpoint of easy understanding of > the ipfix file format, I prefer that the draft is divided by main part > and other parts. > > Q2 > Should a ipfix file include whole message on one session, even if one > session has different Observation Domain ID messages? > From viewpoint of easy decoding and reducing of file size, > I want to make ipfix file based on same Observation Domain ID. > It depends on case or policy. > > Q3 > I could not understand following description in section 7. > Please give more specific example. > > o File Writers SHOULD emit Data Records described by Options > Templates to appear in the file before any Data Records which > depend on the scopes defined by those options. > > Generally, Options that present sampling, sampling algorithm and > filtering method in psamp. These templates and associated data records > should be included in a ipfix file. > Does above description mean these points? > > Q4 > Some of your proposed option templates are useful for several > cases other than file format. For example, there are Anonymization Options > Template and Message Details Options Template. > Mediator draft describes similar template in section 5 . > I think that this part could become independent document after we > explore sophisticated way that can be used for both functions. > > Thanks, > Atsushi KOBAYASHI > > > On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 19:07:19 -0500 > Brian Trammell wrote: > >> All, >> >> draft-ietf-ipfix-file-00 is now available. Many thanks to those of >> you who have reviewed and commented on the draft. Changes from >> individual revision -05 are as follows: >> >> 1. Reorganized the structure of the document somewhat for readability. >> >> 2. Minor changes to template management language for clarity. >> >> 3. Minor changes to options template definitions to clarify which IEs >> are scope IEs. >> >> 4. Terminology capitalization review. >> >> We plan on at least one more revision of this document before WG last >> call to address remaining open issues raised by reviews to date: >> >> 1. Define a mechanism for containing IPFIX data and non-IPFIX data >> (e.g. proprietary metadata, headers and footers) within the same file >> in an interoperable way, or declare such a mechanism explicitly out >> of scope. It seems there is definite WG interest for such a >> mechanism; we'll propose a mechanism for WG discussion this month. >> >> 2. Collection details options templates and information element >> definitions assume a CP is involved in the writing of a file; >> however, routers and other MPs can write IPFIX Files, too, so we will >> remove this assumption where it appears. >> >> 3. The draft should provide guidelines for a CP collecting from >> multiple SCTP streams and writing those records into a file. >> >> 4. The security considerations section should treat the security of >> IPFIX Files written by CPs using TLS for transport security separately. >> >> 5. The document should contain an IPFIX Documents Overview section to >> place the file draft in context. >> >> 6. The document should contain an XML schema definition appendix for >> the IEs it defines. >> >> 7. It has been suggested that the file draft's handling of >> anonymization use a bitmap IE to be parallel with the protocol's >> flowKeyIndicator; however, it is unclear that a bitmap will be >> sufficient for anonymization notation, so more discussion is >> warranted here. >> >> 8. It has also been suggested that the appendices within the file >> draft on comparing and translating NetFlow V9 data into IPFIX, used >> as an informative background for the section within the document on >> applying IPFIX Files to V9 collection infrastructures, might make a >> good draft in its own right. We'd like to assess WG interest in such >> a draft before splitting the file draft again. >> >> Regards, >> >> Brian >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >>> Date: January 2, 2008 12:20:02 PM EST >>> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org >>> Cc: ipfix@ietf.org >>> Subject: [IPFIX] I-D Action:draft-ietf-ipfix-file-00.txt >>> >>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >>> directories. >>> This draft is a work item of the IP Flow Information Export Working >>> Group of the IETF. >>> >>> >>> Title : An IPFIX-Based File Format >>> Author(s) : B. Trammell, et al. >>> Filename : draft-ietf-ipfix-file-00.txt >>> Pages : 50 >>> Date : 2008-01-02 >>> >>> This document describes a file format for the storage of flow data >>> based upon the IPFIX Message format. It proposes a set of >>> requirements for flat-file, binary flow data file formats, then >>> applies the IPFIX message format to these requirements to build a new >>> file format. This IPFIX-based file format is designed to facilitate >>> interoperability and reusability among a wide variety of flow >>> storage, processing, and analysis tools. >>> >>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-file-00.txt >>> >>> To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to >>> i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of >>> the message. >>> You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce >>> to change your subscription settings. >>> >>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the >>> username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After >>> logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then >>> "get draft-ietf-ipfix-file-00.txt". >>> >>> A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in >>> http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >>> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt >>> >>> Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. >>> >>> Send a message to: >>> mailserv@ietf.org. >>> In the body type: >>> "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-file-00.txt". >>> >>> NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in >>> MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this >>> feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" >>> command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or >>> a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers >>> exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with >>> "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split >>> up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on >>> how to manipulate these messages. >>> >>> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader >>> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the >>> Internet-Draft. >>> Content-Type: text/plain >>> Content-ID: <2008-01-02121517.I-D\@ietf.org> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IPFIX mailing list >>> IPFIX@ietf.org >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IPFIX mailing list >> IPFIX@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix > > --- > Atsushi KOBAYASHI > NTT Information Sharing Platform Lab. > tel:+81-(0)422-59-3978 fax:+81-(0)422-59-5637 > > > _______________________________________________ > IPFIX mailing list > IPFIX@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix > -- Hitoshi Irino NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories 9-11 Midori-cho 3-Chome, Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585 Japan Tel: +81-422-59-4403 Fax: +81-422-59-4549 _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Fri Feb 8 00:05:58 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E77E628C1B3; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 00:05:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.09 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.09 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265] Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6+Qhm8pA1Ihh; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 00:05:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01F9928C0FE; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 00:05:49 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 447DE3A6A5B for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 00:05:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AkRVRFKzPpHb for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 00:05:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from tama50.ecl.ntt.co.jp (tama50.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.39.147]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3379728C167 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 00:01:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mfs5.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (mfs5.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.39.144]) by tama50.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m1883G2f012934; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 17:03:16 +0900 (JST) Received: from mfs5.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mfs5.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id E21396A55; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 17:03:16 +0900 (JST) Received: from eclscan2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (eclscan2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.5.68]) by mfs5.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA50F6A4F; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 17:03:16 +0900 (JST) Received: from eclscan2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eclscan2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1883GPl002573; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 17:03:16 +0900 (JST) Received: from imm.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (imm0.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.5.151]) by eclscan2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1883GG4002570; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 17:03:16 +0900 (JST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([129.60.80.56]) by imm.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1883FQi006399; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 17:03:15 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <47AC0CB4.9090801@lab.ntt.co.jp> Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 17:03:00 +0900 From: Hitoshi Irino Organization: NTT User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Trammell References: <20080110230320.55EC.AKOBA@nttv6.net> In-Reply-To: <20080110230320.55EC.AKOBA@nttv6.net> Cc: ipfix@ietf.org Subject: Re: [IPFIX] draft-ietf-ipfix-file-00 X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Hello Brian, I read this draft. These are my comments. 1: I think it is better to change the name "IPFIX File Writer" to "IPFIX File Writing Process" and "IPFIX File Reader" to "IPFIX File Reading Process". Because, Terminology of IPFIX File Writer and Reader defines these are processes. IPFIX File Reader: An IPFIX File Reader is a Process which reads IPFIX Files from a filesystem, IPFIX File Writer: An IPFIX File Writer is a process which writes IPFIX Files to a filesystem, I am reminded of IPFIX Device from the word "Writer" and "Reader". I use the word "IPFIX File Writing Process" instead of "IPFIX File Writer", "IPFIX File Reading Process" instead of "IPFIX File Reader" in following sentence of this mail. 2: I think it is useful to define "Writing Process" and "Reading Process" which are broader concept of "IPFIX File Writing Process" and "IPFIX File Reading Process". "Writing Process" writes the IPFIX Messages to any storage such as file system, database with any format. "Reading Process" reads the IPFIX Messages from any storage such as file system, database with any format. For example, when someone want to implement format converter which converts from any proprietary format (e.g. NetFlow v5) to IPFIX File Format. The converter contains "Reading Process" and "IPFIX File Writer". Definition of "Writing Process" and "Storing Process" in draft-kobayashi-ipfix-mediator-model-01 are almost same. It is better that they should be merged, I think. (2008/01/11 10:37), Kobayashi Atsushi wrote: > Dear Brian, > > I checked your draft in less time. I confirmed that ipfix file is useful > for compatibility and testing. This format makes easily me try to > implement file writer and reader. To clarify your draft and improve my > understanding, I write down several comments, as follows. > > Q1 > I think that main part of this document is section 3,7. > This draft has many tips. But, from viewpoint of easy understanding of > the ipfix file format, I prefer that the draft is divided by main part > and other parts. > > Q2 > Should a ipfix file include whole message on one session, even if one > session has different Observation Domain ID messages? > From viewpoint of easy decoding and reducing of file size, > I want to make ipfix file based on same Observation Domain ID. > It depends on case or policy. > > Q3 > I could not understand following description in section 7. > Please give more specific example. > > o File Writers SHOULD emit Data Records described by Options > Templates to appear in the file before any Data Records which > depend on the scopes defined by those options. > > Generally, Options that present sampling, sampling algorithm and > filtering method in psamp. These templates and associated data records > should be included in a ipfix file. > Does above description mean these points? > > Q4 > Some of your proposed option templates are useful for several > cases other than file format. For example, there are Anonymization Options > Template and Message Details Options Template. > Mediator draft describes similar template in section 5 . > I think that this part could become independent document after we > explore sophisticated way that can be used for both functions. > > Thanks, > Atsushi KOBAYASHI > > > On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 19:07:19 -0500 > Brian Trammell wrote: > >> All, >> >> draft-ietf-ipfix-file-00 is now available. Many thanks to those of >> you who have reviewed and commented on the draft. Changes from >> individual revision -05 are as follows: >> >> 1. Reorganized the structure of the document somewhat for readability. >> >> 2. Minor changes to template management language for clarity. >> >> 3. Minor changes to options template definitions to clarify which IEs >> are scope IEs. >> >> 4. Terminology capitalization review. >> >> We plan on at least one more revision of this document before WG last >> call to address remaining open issues raised by reviews to date: >> >> 1. Define a mechanism for containing IPFIX data and non-IPFIX data >> (e.g. proprietary metadata, headers and footers) within the same file >> in an interoperable way, or declare such a mechanism explicitly out >> of scope. It seems there is definite WG interest for such a >> mechanism; we'll propose a mechanism for WG discussion this month. >> >> 2. Collection details options templates and information element >> definitions assume a CP is involved in the writing of a file; >> however, routers and other MPs can write IPFIX Files, too, so we will >> remove this assumption where it appears. >> >> 3. The draft should provide guidelines for a CP collecting from >> multiple SCTP streams and writing those records into a file. >> >> 4. The security considerations section should treat the security of >> IPFIX Files written by CPs using TLS for transport security separately. >> >> 5. The document should contain an IPFIX Documents Overview section to >> place the file draft in context. >> >> 6. The document should contain an XML schema definition appendix for >> the IEs it defines. >> >> 7. It has been suggested that the file draft's handling of >> anonymization use a bitmap IE to be parallel with the protocol's >> flowKeyIndicator; however, it is unclear that a bitmap will be >> sufficient for anonymization notation, so more discussion is >> warranted here. >> >> 8. It has also been suggested that the appendices within the file >> draft on comparing and translating NetFlow V9 data into IPFIX, used >> as an informative background for the section within the document on >> applying IPFIX Files to V9 collection infrastructures, might make a >> good draft in its own right. We'd like to assess WG interest in such >> a draft before splitting the file draft again. >> >> Regards, >> >> Brian >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >>> Date: January 2, 2008 12:20:02 PM EST >>> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org >>> Cc: ipfix@ietf.org >>> Subject: [IPFIX] I-D Action:draft-ietf-ipfix-file-00.txt >>> >>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >>> directories. >>> This draft is a work item of the IP Flow Information Export Working >>> Group of the IETF. >>> >>> >>> Title : An IPFIX-Based File Format >>> Author(s) : B. Trammell, et al. >>> Filename : draft-ietf-ipfix-file-00.txt >>> Pages : 50 >>> Date : 2008-01-02 >>> >>> This document describes a file format for the storage of flow data >>> based upon the IPFIX Message format. It proposes a set of >>> requirements for flat-file, binary flow data file formats, then >>> applies the IPFIX message format to these requirements to build a new >>> file format. This IPFIX-based file format is designed to facilitate >>> interoperability and reusability among a wide variety of flow >>> storage, processing, and analysis tools. >>> >>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-file-00.txt >>> >>> To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to >>> i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of >>> the message. >>> You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce >>> to change your subscription settings. >>> >>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the >>> username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After >>> logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then >>> "get draft-ietf-ipfix-file-00.txt". >>> >>> A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in >>> http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >>> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt >>> >>> Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. >>> >>> Send a message to: >>> mailserv@ietf.org. >>> In the body type: >>> "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-file-00.txt". >>> >>> NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in >>> MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this >>> feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" >>> command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or >>> a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers >>> exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with >>> "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split >>> up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on >>> how to manipulate these messages. >>> >>> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader >>> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the >>> Internet-Draft. >>> Content-Type: text/plain >>> Content-ID: <2008-01-02121517.I-D\@ietf.org> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IPFIX mailing list >>> IPFIX@ietf.org >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IPFIX mailing list >> IPFIX@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix > > --- > Atsushi KOBAYASHI > NTT Information Sharing Platform Lab. > tel:+81-(0)422-59-3978 fax:+81-(0)422-59-5637 > > > _______________________________________________ > IPFIX mailing list > IPFIX@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix > -- Hitoshi Irino NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories 9-11 Midori-cho 3-Chome, Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585 Japan Tel: +81-422-59-4403 Fax: +81-422-59-4549 _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 11 04:15:06 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C051D3A6B9E; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:15:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.548 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.548 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.051, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DJVTgWb7GmNb; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:15:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4BE03A6B4C; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:15:03 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@ietf.org Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 9D4393A6B21; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:15:01 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Message-Id: <20080211121501.9D4393A6B21@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:15:01 -0800 (PST) Cc: ipfix@ietf.org Subject: [IPFIX] I-D Action:draft-ietf-ipfix-testing-04.txt X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Flow Information Export Working Group of the IETF. Title : Guidelines for IP Flow Information eXport (IPFIX) Testing Author(s) : C. Schmoll, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ipfix-testing-04.txt Pages : 42 Date : 2008-02-11 This document presents a list of tests that implementers of IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) compliant Exporting Processes and Collecting Processes should perform on their IPFIX Exporting Process and/or Collecting Process. This document has been created to help implementers test the functionality of their IPFIX Exporting Process and/or Collecting Process. The goal of these tests is to ensure that all important functions are covered by tests and thereby to gain a level of confidence in the Exporting Process and Collecting Process that allows the implementer to perform interoperability or plug tests with other IPFIX Exporting Processes and Collecting Processes.Conventions used in this document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-testing-04.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ipfix-testing-04.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-testing-04.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-02-11040024.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-testing-04.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ipfix-testing-04.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-02-11040024.I-D\@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix --NextPart-- From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 11 04:15:06 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C051D3A6B9E; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:15:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.548 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.548 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.051, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DJVTgWb7GmNb; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:15:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4BE03A6B4C; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:15:03 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@ietf.org Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 9D4393A6B21; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:15:01 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Message-Id: <20080211121501.9D4393A6B21@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:15:01 -0800 (PST) Cc: ipfix@ietf.org Subject: [IPFIX] I-D Action:draft-ietf-ipfix-testing-04.txt X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Flow Information Export Working Group of the IETF. Title : Guidelines for IP Flow Information eXport (IPFIX) Testing Author(s) : C. Schmoll, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ipfix-testing-04.txt Pages : 42 Date : 2008-02-11 This document presents a list of tests that implementers of IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) compliant Exporting Processes and Collecting Processes should perform on their IPFIX Exporting Process and/or Collecting Process. This document has been created to help implementers test the functionality of their IPFIX Exporting Process and/or Collecting Process. The goal of these tests is to ensure that all important functions are covered by tests and thereby to gain a level of confidence in the Exporting Process and Collecting Process that allows the implementer to perform interoperability or plug tests with other IPFIX Exporting Processes and Collecting Processes.Conventions used in this document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-testing-04.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ipfix-testing-04.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-testing-04.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-02-11040024.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-testing-04.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ipfix-testing-04.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-02-11040024.I-D\@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix --NextPart-- From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 12 06:42:14 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEEA828C318; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 06:42:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vQG4GBG77vVl; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 06:42:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09E3228C266; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 06:42:13 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@ietf.org Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id 9B86428C229; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 06:42:12 -0800 (PST) X-idtracker: yes To: IETF-Announce From: The IESG Message-Id: <20080212144212.9B86428C229@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 06:42:12 -0800 (PST) Cc: ipfix@ietf.org Subject: [IPFIX] Last Call: draft-ietf-ipfix-testing (Guidelines for IP Flow Information eXport (IPFIX) Testing) to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org The IESG has received a request from the IP Flow Information Export WG (ipfix) to consider the following document: - 'Guidelines for IP Flow Information eXport (IPFIX) Testing ' as an Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2008-02-26. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-testing-04.txt IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=15388&rfc_flag=0 _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 12 06:42:14 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEEA828C318; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 06:42:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vQG4GBG77vVl; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 06:42:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09E3228C266; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 06:42:13 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@ietf.org Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id 9B86428C229; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 06:42:12 -0800 (PST) X-idtracker: yes To: IETF-Announce From: The IESG Message-Id: <20080212144212.9B86428C229@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 06:42:12 -0800 (PST) Cc: ipfix@ietf.org Subject: [IPFIX] Last Call: draft-ietf-ipfix-testing (Guidelines for IP Flow Information eXport (IPFIX) Testing) to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org The IESG has received a request from the IP Flow Information Export WG (ipfix) to consider the following document: - 'Guidelines for IP Flow Information eXport (IPFIX) Testing ' as an Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2008-02-26. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-testing-04.txt IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=15388&rfc_flag=0 _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 13 01:08:33 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A0D63A6F54; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:08:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.323 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.323 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.240, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=1, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S6pviicGtZjO; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:08:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31E153A6D7C; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:08:32 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7707C3A6D7C for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:08:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lrcYyhhCAvL4 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:08:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (odd-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.119]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3999A3A6989 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:08:30 -0800 (PST) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id m1D99ms08122 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:09:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.61.66.82] (ams3-vpn-dhcp594.cisco.com [10.61.66.82]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id m1D99mB05459 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:09:48 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47B2B3DE.1020302@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:09:50 +0100 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Windows/20070509) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "ipfix@ietf.org" Subject: [IPFIX] draft-ietf-ipfix-testing-04.txt: new version of the draft X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0003221810==" Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============0003221810== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030708000205070804010503" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030708000205070804010503 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear all, The reason for this new draft is that we have addressed the AD comments. Some of changes were a series of small changes. So it was easier to simply edit a new version of the draft. Furthermore, we discovered a problem in the structure of the "3.6.8. Re-using Template IDs". For example, there is no "template expiry time" with SCTP 3.6.8. Re-using Template ID 3.6.8.1. Re-using the same Template ID inside the Template expiry time 3.6.8.1.1. Using SCTP transport. So we moved some text around. Finally, while we were at it, we reviewed the draft a few times, and improved the text in order to avoid any confusions. For example, in the section 3.6.8, we mentioned things such as: use the _same _SCTP assocation From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 13 01:08:33 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A0D63A6F54; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:08:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.323 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.323 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.240, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=1, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S6pviicGtZjO; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:08:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31E153A6D7C; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:08:32 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7707C3A6D7C for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:08:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lrcYyhhCAvL4 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:08:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (odd-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.119]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3999A3A6989 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:08:30 -0800 (PST) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id m1D99ms08122 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:09:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.61.66.82] (ams3-vpn-dhcp594.cisco.com [10.61.66.82]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id m1D99mB05459 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:09:48 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47B2B3DE.1020302@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:09:50 +0100 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Windows/20070509) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "ipfix@ietf.org" Subject: [IPFIX] draft-ietf-ipfix-testing-04.txt: new version of the draft X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0003221810==" Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============0003221810== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030708000205070804010503" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030708000205070804010503 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear all, The reason for this new draft is that we have addressed the AD comments. Some of changes were a series of small changes. So it was easier to simply edit a new version of the draft. Furthermore, we discovered a problem in the structure of the "3.6.8. Re-using Template IDs". For example, there is no "template expiry time" with SCTP 3.6.8. Re-using Template ID 3.6.8.1. Re-using the same Template ID inside the Template expiry time 3.6.8.1.1. Using SCTP transport. So we moved some text around. Finally, while we were at it, we reviewed the draft a few times, and improved the text in order to avoid any confusions. For example, in the section 3.6.8, we mentioned things such as: use the _same _SCTP assocation or TCP connection, resend the _same _template, etc... The time spent on this draft these days should ease the AUTH48 procedure. Regards, Benoit. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification - draft-ietf-ipfix-testing-04.txt Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:15:01 -0800 (PST) From: Internet-Draft@ietf.org To: ipfix-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-ipfix-testing@tools.ietf.org, dromasca@avaya.com New version (-04) has been submitted for draft-ietf-ipfix-testing-04.txt. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-testing-04.txt IETF Secretariat. --------------030708000205070804010503 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear all,

The reason for this new draft is that we have addressed the AD comments.
Some of changes were a series of small changes. So it was easier to simply edit a new version of the draft.
Furthermore, we discovered a problem in the structure of the "3.6.8.  Re-using Template IDs".
For example, there is no "template expiry time" with SCTP
3.6.8.  Re-using Template ID
3.6.8.1.  Re-using the same Template ID inside the Template expiry time
3.6.8.1.1.  Using SCTP transport.
So we moved some text around.
Finally, while we were at it, we reviewed the draft a few times, and improved the text in order to avoid any confusions. For example, in the section 3.6.8, we mentioned things such as: use the same SCTP assocation or TCP connection, resend the same template, etc... The time spent on this draft these days should ease the AUTH48 procedure.

Regards, Benoit.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: New Version Notification - draft-ietf-ipfix-testing-04.txt
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:15:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Internet-Draft@ietf.org
To: ipfix-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-ipfix-testing@tools.ietf.org, dromasca@avaya.com 


New version (-04) has been submitted for draft-ietf-ipfix-testing-04.txt.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-testing-04.txt


IETF Secretariat.
--------------030708000205070804010503-- --===============0003221810== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix --===============0003221810==-- or TCP connection, resend the _same _template, etc... The time spent on this draft these days should ease the AUTH48 procedure. Regards, Benoit. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification - draft-ietf-ipfix-testing-04.txt Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:15:01 -0800 (PST) From: Internet-Draft@ietf.org To: ipfix-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-ipfix-testing@tools.ietf.org, dromasca@avaya.com New version (-04) has been submitted for draft-ietf-ipfix-testing-04.txt. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-testing-04.txt IETF Secretariat. --------------030708000205070804010503 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear all,

The reason for this new draft is that we have addressed the AD comments.
Some of changes were a series of small changes. So it was easier to simply edit a new version of the draft.
Furthermore, we discovered a problem in the structure of the "3.6.8.  Re-using Template IDs".
For example, there is no "template expiry time" with SCTP
3.6.8.  Re-using Template ID
3.6.8.1.  Re-using the same Template ID inside the Template expiry time
3.6.8.1.1.  Using SCTP transport.
So we moved some text around.
Finally, while we were at it, we reviewed the draft a few times, and improved the text in order to avoid any confusions. For example, in the section 3.6.8, we mentioned things such as: use the same SCTP assocation or TCP connection, resend the same template, etc... The time spent on this draft these days should ease the AUTH48 procedure.

Regards, Benoit.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: New Version Notification - draft-ietf-ipfix-testing-04.txt
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:15:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Internet-Draft@ietf.org
To: ipfix-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-ipfix-testing@tools.ietf.org, dromasca@avaya.com 


New version (-04) has been submitted for draft-ietf-ipfix-testing-04.txt.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-testing-04.txt


IETF Secretariat.
--------------030708000205070804010503-- --===============0003221810== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix --===============0003221810==-- From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Fri Feb 15 06:43:08 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3E6528D1B5; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 06:43:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.366 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.366 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.197, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=1, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mKZKQZG96rcc; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 06:43:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D0BB28D05E; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 06:43:07 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E656B28D05E for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 06:43:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lhxWRx6oXDTg for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 06:43:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (odd-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.119]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD00D28CE16 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 06:43:05 -0800 (PST) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id m1FEiP700448 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:44:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.61.67.198] (ams3-vpn-dhcp966.cisco.com [10.61.67.198]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id m1FEiNB16384 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:44:23 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47B5A546.5090704@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:44:22 +0100 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Windows/20070509) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "ipfix@ietf.org" Subject: [IPFIX] Per-SCTP stream draft: New Template ID SHOULD/MUST be used? X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1131445586==" Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1131445586== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070101020807010708030507" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070101020807010708030507 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear all, During the last IETF meeting, we discussed the following open issue for regarding http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ipfix/draft-claise-ipfix-export-per-sctp-stream-02.txt, which concerns a current limitation in [IPFIX-PROTO]: "Template IDs are unique per SCTP association and per Observation Domain. If the Collecting Process receives a Template that has already been received but that has not previously been withdrawn (i.e., a Template Record from the same Exporter Observation Domain with the same Template ID received on the SCTP association), then the Collecting Process MUST shut down the association." The current draft specifies: "Redefinition of the Template ID is not encouraged. Instead, new Template ID SHOULD be used, uFrom ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Fri Feb 15 06:43:08 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3E6528D1B5; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 06:43:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.366 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.366 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.197, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=1, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mKZKQZG96rcc; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 06:43:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D0BB28D05E; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 06:43:07 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E656B28D05E for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 06:43:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lhxWRx6oXDTg for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 06:43:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (odd-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.119]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD00D28CE16 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 06:43:05 -0800 (PST) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id m1FEiP700448 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:44:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.61.67.198] (ams3-vpn-dhcp966.cisco.com [10.61.67.198]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id m1FEiNB16384 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:44:23 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47B5A546.5090704@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:44:22 +0100 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Windows/20070509) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "ipfix@ietf.org" Subject: [IPFIX] Per-SCTP stream draft: New Template ID SHOULD/MUST be used? X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1131445586==" Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1131445586== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070101020807010708030507" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070101020807010708030507 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear all, During the last IETF meeting, we discussed the following open issue for regarding http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ipfix/draft-claise-ipfix-export-per-sctp-stream-02.txt, which concerns a current limitation in [IPFIX-PROTO]: "Template IDs are unique per SCTP association and per Observation Domain. If the Collecting Process receives a Template that has already been received but that has not previously been withdrawn (i.e., a Template Record from the same Exporter Observation Domain with the same Template ID received on the SCTP association), then the Collecting Process MUST shut down the association." The current draft specifies: "Redefinition of the Template ID is not encouraged. Instead, new Template ID SHOULD be used, until the exhaustion of the Template ID space." Do we want to put a MUST in that sentence? IMHO, a MUST would be a plus as: - it would considerably reduce the risk of losing Data Records in corner cases when Template IDs are applicable across multiple streams - the number of bits for the Template ID is huge enough. The Template ID would wrap up to the next available Template ID, for which the Template Withdraw Message certainly had the time to reach the Collecting Process. - the implementation is easy. Feedback? Regards, Benoit. --------------070101020807010708030507 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear all,

During the last IETF meeting, we discussed the following open issue for regarding http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ipfix/draft-claise-ipfix-export-per-sctp-stream-02.txt, which concerns a current limitation in [IPFIX-PROTO]:
"Template IDs are unique per SCTP association and per Observation
Domain. If the Collecting Process receives a Template that has
already been received but that has not previously been withdrawn
(i.e., a Template Record from the same Exporter Observation Domain
with the same Template ID received on the SCTP association), then the
Collecting Process MUST shut down the association."

The current draft specifies: "Redefinition of the Template ID is not encouraged. Instead, new Template ID SHOULD be used, until the exhaustion of the Template ID space."
Do we want to put a MUST in that sentence?

IMHO, a MUST would be a plus as:
- it would considerably reduce the risk of losing Data Records in corner cases when Template IDs are applicable across multiple streams
- the number of bits for the Template ID is huge enough. The Template ID would wrap up to the next available Template ID, for which the Template Withdraw Message certainly had the time to reach the Collecting Process.
- the implementation is easy.

Feedback?

Regards, Benoit.

 

--------------070101020807010708030507-- --===============1131445586== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix --===============1131445586==-- ntil the exhaustion of the Template ID space." Do we want to put a MUST in that sentence? IMHO, a MUST would be a plus as: - it would considerably reduce the risk of losing Data Records in corner cases when Template IDs are applicable across multiple streams - the number of bits for the Template ID is huge enough. The Template ID would wrap up to the next available Template ID, for which the Template Withdraw Message certainly had the time to reach the Collecting Process. - the implementation is easy. Feedback? Regards, Benoit. --------------070101020807010708030507 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear all,

During the last IETF meeting, we discussed the following open issue for regarding http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ipfix/draft-claise-ipfix-export-per-sctp-stream-02.txt, which concerns a current limitation in [IPFIX-PROTO]:
"Template IDs are unique per SCTP association and per Observation
Domain. If the Collecting Process receives a Template that has
already been received but that has not previously been withdrawn
(i.e., a Template Record from the same Exporter Observation Domain
with the same Template ID received on the SCTP association), then the
Collecting Process MUST shut down the association."

The current draft specifies: "Redefinition of the Template ID is not encouraged. Instead, new Template ID SHOULD be used, until the exhaustion of the Template ID space."
Do we want to put a MUST in that sentence?

IMHO, a MUST would be a plus as:
- it would considerably reduce the risk of losing Data Records in corner cases when Template IDs are applicable across multiple streams
- the number of bits for the Template ID is huge enough. The Template ID would wrap up to the next available Template ID, for which the Template Withdraw Message certainly had the time to reach the Collecting Process.
- the implementation is easy.

Feedback?

Regards, Benoit.

 

--------------070101020807010708030507-- --===============1131445586== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix --===============1131445586==-- From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 18 06:33:41 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D768E3A6CCA; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 06:33:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.406 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.406 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.969, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id au6KBgbDYVAc; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 06:33:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 858043A6BB9; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 06:33:40 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BB1B3A6BF7 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 06:33:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 39PWCpRaeKGt for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 06:33:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx06.uni-tuebingen.de (mx06.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.3.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 754013A69D7 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 06:33:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from [134.2.172.138] (u-172-c138.cs.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.172.138]) by mx06.uni-tuebingen.de (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m1IEXTLh000403; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:33:30 +0100 Message-ID: <47B99735.6050200@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:33:25 +0100 From: Gerhard Muenz User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Benoit Claise References: <47B5A546.5090704@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <47B5A546.5090704@cisco.com> X-AntiVirus: checked by AntiVir MailGate (version: 2.1.2-11; AVE: 7.6.0.67; VDF: 7.0.2.153; host: mx06) Cc: "ipfix@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [IPFIX] Per-SCTP stream draft: New Template ID SHOULD/MUST be used? X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1514293760==" Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --===============1514293760== Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms000901080209030409070904" This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms000901080209030409070904 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Benoit, all, > During the last IETF meeting, we discussed the following open issue for= > regarding > http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ipfix/draft-claise-ipfix-export-per-sctp-strea= m-02.txt, > which concerns a current limitation in [IPFIX-PROTO]: >=20 > "Template IDs are unique per SCTP association and per Observation > Domain. If the Collecting Process receives a Template that has > already been received but that has not previously been withdrawn > (i.e., a Template Record from the same Exporter Observation Domain > with the same Template ID received on the SCTP association), then t= he > Collecting Process MUST shut down the association." >=20 >=20 > TheFrom ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 18 06:33:41 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D768E3A6CCA; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 06:33:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.406 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.406 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.969, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id au6KBgbDYVAc; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 06:33:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 858043A6BB9; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 06:33:40 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BB1B3A6BF7 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 06:33:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 39PWCpRaeKGt for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 06:33:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx06.uni-tuebingen.de (mx06.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.3.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 754013A69D7 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 06:33:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from [134.2.172.138] (u-172-c138.cs.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.172.138]) by mx06.uni-tuebingen.de (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m1IEXTLh000403; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:33:30 +0100 Message-ID: <47B99735.6050200@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:33:25 +0100 From: Gerhard Muenz User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Benoit Claise References: <47B5A546.5090704@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <47B5A546.5090704@cisco.com> X-AntiVirus: checked by AntiVir MailGate (version: 2.1.2-11; AVE: 7.6.0.67; VDF: 7.0.2.153; host: mx06) Cc: "ipfix@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [IPFIX] Per-SCTP stream draft: New Template ID SHOULD/MUST be used? X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1514293760==" Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --===============1514293760== Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms000901080209030409070904" This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms000901080209030409070904 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Benoit, all, > During the last IETF meeting, we discussed the following open issue for= > regarding > http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ipfix/draft-claise-ipfix-export-per-sctp-strea= m-02.txt, > which concerns a current limitation in [IPFIX-PROTO]: >=20 > "Template IDs are unique per SCTP association and per Observation > Domain. If the Collecting Process receives a Template that has > already been received but that has not previously been withdrawn > (i.e., a Template Record from the same Exporter Observation Domain > with the same Template ID received on the SCTP association), then t= he > Collecting Process MUST shut down the association." >=20 >=20 > The current draft specifies: "Redefinition of the Template ID is not > encouraged. Instead, new Template ID SHOULD be used, until the > exhaustion of the Template ID space." > Do we want to put a MUST in that sentence? >=20 > IMHO, a MUST would be a plus as: > - it would considerably reduce the risk of losing Data Records in corne= r > cases when Template IDs are applicable across multiple streams What do you mean by reducing the risk of losing Data Records? After receiving the Template Withdrawal Message, is not allowed to decode any further Data Records associated with this Template ID. Hence, you will always lose Data Records which arrive too late, independently of the stream. > - the number of bits for the Template ID is huge enough. The Template I= D > would wrap up to the next available Template ID, for which the Template= > Withdraw Message certainly had the time to reach the Collecting Process= =2E > - the implementation is easy. >=20 > Feedback? According to my understanding, Template IDs can be reused without losing any Records if the following three conditions are fulfilled: 1) Template and associated Data Records are sent over the same stream using ordered delivery. 2) Reutilization of Template IDs is restricted to the same stream. 3) "All Template Withdrawal Message" is not used to withdraw Templates from multiple streams. Note that 1) does not imply that there is one stream per Template. If any of the above conditions is not fulfilled, Data Records may arrive before a Template, or after a Template Withdrawal Message. Furthermore, if a Template ID is reused very quickly, we might have trouble with some delayed Data Records assigned to the old Template and arriving after the new Template. It would be possible to detect that such delayed Data Records do not belong to the new Template because by comparing the export times of the Template and the Data Records. Yet this means that the export time has to be stored for every Template, and that the Collector must accomplish this comparison for every Data Record. If we do not want to increase the Collector complexity in this manner, Template IDs should not be reused as long as possible. Using new Template ID until the exhaustion of the Template ID space achieves this goal. However, I would not put a "MUST" because under the conditions mentioned above, I can safely reuse Template IDs whenever I want. Going beyond your question: Reading the draft, it is difficult to understand its purpose. If I understand correctly, it describes how to run IPFIX over multiple SCTP streams in a beneficial way. Yet, most of section 5 explains common IPFIX protocol behavior as specified in RFC 5101. It is difficult to see at which points the draft goes beyond RFC 5101. I propose to focus on explaining the recommended usage of SCTP streams, combined with explanations why this is beneficial. If you want to keep the detailed description of Exporter and Collector side behavior, make clear which parts are normal IPFIX behavior and which parts are according to your recommendations. Further comments/questions: An Exporter uses multiple streams to export Data Sets. In such a case, the Observation Domain MUST use the same Observation Domain ID value on all of the streams it uses. This means that only one Observation Domain ID is allowed per association. What is the reason for this restriction? Note: the idea of sending the (Options) Template Records on every single streams to which the Data Records corresponds to has been investigated. However, [IPFIX-PROTO] specifies that the (Options) Templates Records are scoped by Transport Session, not per stream: "Template IDs are unique per SCTP association and per Observation Domain. ..." Actually, RFC 5101 specifies that Template IDs (not Templates!) are scoped per Transport Session. It does not forbid sending the same Option Template with different Template IDs over different streams. And this would solve the issue. The Template Withdrawal current draft specifies: "Redefinition of the Template ID is not > encouraged. Instead, new Template ID SHOULD be used, until the > exhaustion of the Template ID space." > Do we want to put a MUST in that sentence? >=20 > IMHO, a MUST would be a plus as: > - it would considerably reduce the risk of losing Data Records in corne= r > cases when Template IDs are applicable across multiple streams What do you mean by reducing the risk of losing Data Records? After receiving the Template Withdrawal Message, is not allowed to decode any further Data Records associated with this Template ID. Hence, you will always lose Data Records which arrive too late, independently of the stream. > - the number of bits for the Template ID is huge enough. The Template I= D > would wrap up to the next available Template ID, for which the Template= > Withdraw Message certainly had the time to reach the Collecting Process= =2E > - the implementation is easy. >=20 > Feedback? According to my understanding, Template IDs can be reused without losing any Records if the following three conditions are fulfilled: 1) Template and associated Data Records are sent over the same stream using ordered delivery. 2) Reutilization of Template IDs is restricted to the same stream. 3) "All Template Withdrawal Message" is not used to withdraw Templates from multiple streams. Note that 1) does not imply that there is one stream per Template. If any of the above conditions is not fulfilled, Data Records may arrive before a Template, or after a Template Withdrawal Message. Furthermore, if a Template ID is reused very quickly, we might have trouble with some delayed Data Records assigned to the old Template and arriving after the new Template. It would be possible to detect that such delayed Data Records do not belong to the new Template because by comparing the export times of the Template and the Data Records. Yet this means that the export time has to be stored for every Template, and that the Collector must accomplish this comparison for every Data Record. If we do not want to increase the Collector complexity in this manner, Template IDs should not be reused as long as possible. Using new Template ID until the exhaustion of the Template ID space achieves this goal. However, I would not put a "MUST" because under the conditions mentioned above, I can safely reuse Template IDs whenever I want. Going beyond your question: Reading the draft, it is difficult to understand its purpose. If I understand correctly, it describes how to run IPFIX over multiple SCTP streams in a beneficial way. Yet, most of section 5 explains common IPFIX protocol behavior as specified in RFC 5101. It is difficult to see at which points the draft goes beyond RFC 5101. I propose to focus on explaining the recommended usage of SCTP streams, combined with explanations why this is beneficial. If you want to keep the detailed description of Exporter and Collector side behavior, make clear which parts are normal IPFIX behavior and which parts are according to your recommendations. Further comments/questions: An Exporter uses multiple streams to export Data Sets. In such a case, the Observation Domain MUST use the same Observation Domain ID value on all of the streams it uses. This means that only one Observation Domain ID is allowed per association. What is the reason for this restriction? Note: the idea of sending the (Options) Template Records on every single streams to which the Data Records corresponds to has been investigated. However, [IPFIX-PROTO] specifies that the (Options) Templates Records are scoped by Transport Session, not per stream: "Template IDs are unique per SCTP association and per Observation Domain. ..." Actually, RFC 5101 specifies that Template IDs (not Templates!) are scoped per Transport Session. It does not forbid sending the same Option Template with different Template IDs over different streams. And this would solve the issue. The Template Withdrawal Message SHOULD be sent in the last used stream that carried the Template ID to be removed. but later: If the Collecting Process receives a Template Withdrawal Message on a different stream than the one on which the Template is used, then the Collecting Process MUST shutdown the association. You have a SHOULD for the Exporter and a MUST for the Collector. The described Collector behavior contradicts RFC 5101: "The Template Withdrawal Message may be sent on any SCTP stream." So probably, the association should not be shut down. If the Metering Process restarts, the Exporting Process MUST reuse the previously assigned Template ID for each Template and it MUST reuse the corresponding previously assigned stream for each Template ID. Alternatively, it MUST withdraw the previously issued Template IDs by sending Template Withdrawal Message(s) before reusing them. It can then use any available stream for the Template ID. You have a MUST and an alternative MUST. Which one is the real MUST? Do we really need this paragraph at all? If the measurement parameters change, the Template MUST be withdrawn (using a Template Withdrawal Message and a new Template definition) or an unused Template ID MUST be used. Examples of the measurement changes are: a new sampling rate, a new flow expiration process, a new filtering definition, etc. If a Template is changed, a Template Withdrawal Message MUST be sent to delete the Template. Redefinition of the Template ID is not encouraged. Instead, new Template ID SHOULD be used, until the exhaustion of the Template ID space. What is the reason for withdrawing Templates just because the measurement parameters have changed? Wouldn't it be sufficient to send a reliable Option Data Record with the new measurement parameters? Regards, Gerhard --=20 Dipl.-Ing. Gerhard M=FCnz Computer Networks and Internet Wilhelm Schickard Institute for Computer Science University of Tuebingen Sand 13 (Room B309), D-72076 Tuebingen, Germany Phone: +49 7071 29-70534 Fax: +49 7071 29-5220 E-mail: muenz@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de WWW: http://net.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/~muenz --------------ms000901080209030409070904 Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIJdTCC AxUwggJ+oAMCAQICED9aGsYWkMr+s4zmyODhB+IwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwYjELMAkGA1UE BhMCWkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMT I1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBMB4XDTA4MDIxMzE1MTUxN1oX DTA5MDIxMjE1MTUxN1owbDEOMAwGA1UEBBMFTXVlbnoxEDAOBgNVBCoTB0dlcmhhcmQxFjAU BgNVBAMTDUdlcmhhcmQgTXVlbnoxMDAuBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWIW11ZW56QGluZm9ybWF0aWsu dW5pLXR1ZWJpbmdlbi5kZTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBAMZex/Sq sAxkzTVvKP/YAgkaeXA+ngH59Aa0bbRPsKOWzAndGqty5EKcEzrnKqEJ27qHFvoF/pHp88U2 7SJI/xbqkgWeV2jRaldipZQYlnjYLQcmb4cewIFuGRRSVrm3BquzX38aYazuE4+DVH2Z3a8z n0FcdMXhA1NR2Ma1rh4G7SIeZ+hC7czbvNRPraBliGdQhs8J/6yP/iL8aNYAl9c7CL4ofRj8 Y9orMOV/4vtWTq76/VQUVdbhUMiv0D8aHqI1ZvGskhRRvmITgQRVbbn8N8WTpZ0UCgMDjxPP 9i5IhLfp6oBtsKl4OZ0RXvSLZrbJTkBX3vnEutcyxDvyNgMCAwEAAaM+MDwwLAYDVR0RBCUw I4EhbXVlbnpAaW5mb3JtYXRpay51bmktdHVlYmluZ2VuLmRlMAwGA1UdEwEB/wQCMAAwDQYJ KoZIhvcNAQEFBQADgYEAX5SiD6epJePwBjJumOsTF6wzeuZRDLYlN+fOpXwd2C0Yx6i8iIZ9 l/J/nGaE1YpJPfX5oJDE+tOk1vYh2E9ThLOj9kJ3buZmgOCdVu90qtCWhfhli7RCYcJ+G9M3 FCnqbrzI/waPPXGB8/DY1HKgPj5G+oKPUK+GD2aE1Q3PYGowggMVMIICfqADAgECAhA/WhrG FpDK/rOM5sjg4QfiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUwIwYDVQQKExxU aGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZyAoUHR5KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwg RnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBDQTAeFw0wODAyMTMxNTE1MTdaFw0wOTAyMTIxNTE1MTdaMGwx DjAMBgNVBAQTBU11ZW56MRAwDgYDVQQqEwdHZXJoYXJkMRYwFAYDVQQDEw1HZXJoYXJkIE11 ZW56MTAwLgYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFiFtdWVuekBpbmZvcm1hdGlrLnVuaS10dWViaW5nZW4uZGUw ggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUA Message SHOULD be sent in the last used stream that carried the Template ID to be removed. but later: If the Collecting Process receives a Template Withdrawal Message on a different stream than the one on which the Template is used, then the Collecting Process MUST shutdown the association. You have a SHOULD for the Exporter and a MUST for the Collector. The described Collector behavior contradicts RFC 5101: "The Template Withdrawal Message may be sent on any SCTP stream." So probably, the association should not be shut down. If the Metering Process restarts, the Exporting Process MUST reuse the previously assigned Template ID for each Template and it MUST reuse the corresponding previously assigned stream for each Template ID. Alternatively, it MUST withdraw the previously issued Template IDs by sending Template Withdrawal Message(s) before reusing them. It can then use any available stream for the Template ID. You have a MUST and an alternative MUST. Which one is the real MUST? Do we really need this paragraph at all? If the measurement parameters change, the Template MUST be withdrawn (using a Template Withdrawal Message and a new Template definition) or an unused Template ID MUST be used. Examples of the measurement changes are: a new sampling rate, a new flow expiration process, a new filtering definition, etc. If a Template is changed, a Template Withdrawal Message MUST be sent to delete the Template. Redefinition of the Template ID is not encouraged. Instead, new Template ID SHOULD be used, until the exhaustion of the Template ID space. What is the reason for withdrawing Templates just because the measurement parameters have changed? Wouldn't it be sufficient to send a reliable Option Data Record with the new measurement parameters? Regards, Gerhard --=20 Dipl.-Ing. Gerhard M=FCnz Computer Networks and Internet Wilhelm Schickard Institute for Computer Science University of Tuebingen Sand 13 (Room B309), D-72076 Tuebingen, Germany Phone: +49 7071 29-70534 Fax: +49 7071 29-5220 E-mail: muenz@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de WWW: http://net.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/~muenz --------------ms000901080209030409070904 Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIJdTCC AxUwggJ+oAMCAQICED9aGsYWkMr+s4zmyODhB+IwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwYjELMAkGA1UE BhMCWkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMT I1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBMB4XDTA4MDIxMzE1MTUxN1oX DTA5MDIxMjE1MTUxN1owbDEOMAwGA1UEBBMFTXVlbnoxEDAOBgNVBCoTB0dlcmhhcmQxFjAU BgNVBAMTDUdlcmhhcmQgTXVlbnoxMDAuBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWIW11ZW56QGluZm9ybWF0aWsu dW5pLXR1ZWJpbmdlbi5kZTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBAMZex/Sq sAxkzTVvKP/YAgkaeXA+ngH59Aa0bbRPsKOWzAndGqty5EKcEzrnKqEJ27qHFvoF/pHp88U2 7SJI/xbqkgWeV2jRaldipZQYlnjYLQcmb4cewIFuGRRSVrm3BquzX38aYazuE4+DVH2Z3a8z n0FcdMXhA1NR2Ma1rh4G7SIeZ+hC7czbvNRPraBliGdQhs8J/6yP/iL8aNYAl9c7CL4ofRj8 Y9orMOV/4vtWTq76/VQUVdbhUMiv0D8aHqI1ZvGskhRRvmITgQRVbbn8N8WTpZ0UCgMDjxPP 9i5IhLfp6oBtsKl4OZ0RXvSLZrbJTkBX3vnEutcyxDvyNgMCAwEAAaM+MDwwLAYDVR0RBCUw I4EhbXVlbnpAaW5mb3JtYXRpay51bmktdHVlYmluZ2VuLmRlMAwGA1UdEwEB/wQCMAAwDQYJ KoZIhvcNAQEFBQADgYEAX5SiD6epJePwBjJumOsTF6wzeuZRDLYlN+fOpXwd2C0Yx6i8iIZ9 l/J/nGaE1YpJPfX5oJDE+tOk1vYh2E9ThLOj9kJ3buZmgOCdVu90qtCWhfhli7RCYcJ+G9M3 FCnqbrzI/waPPXGB8/DY1HKgPj5G+oKPUK+GD2aE1Q3PYGowggMVMIICfqADAgECAhA/WhrG FpDK/rOM5sjg4QfiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUwIwYDVQQKExxU aGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZyAoUHR5KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwg RnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBDQTAeFw0wODAyMTMxNTE1MTdaFw0wOTAyMTIxNTE1MTdaMGwx DjAMBgNVBAQTBU11ZW56MRAwDgYDVQQqEwdHZXJoYXJkMRYwFAYDVQQDEw1HZXJoYXJkIE11 ZW56MTAwLgYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFiFtdWVuekBpbmZvcm1hdGlrLnVuaS10dWViaW5nZW4uZGUw ggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQDGXsf0qrAMZM01byj/2AIJGnlwPp4B +fQGtG20T7CjlswJ3RqrcuRCnBM65yqhCdu6hxb6Bf6R6fPFNu0iSP8W6pIFnldo0WpXYqWU GJZ42C0HJm+HHsCBbhkUUla5twars19/GmGs7hOPg1R9md2vM59BXHTF4QNTUdjGta4eBu0i HmfoQu3M27zUT62gZYhnUIbPCf+sj/4i/GjWAJfXOwi+KH0Y/GPaKzDlf+L7Vk6u+v1UFFXW 4VDIr9A/Gh6iNWbxrJIUUb5iE4EEVW25/DfFk6WdFAoDA48Tz/YuSIS36eqAbbCpeDmdEV70 i2a2yU5AV975xLrXMsQ78jYDAgMBAAGjPjA8MCwGA1UdEQQlMCOBIW11ZW56QGluZm9ybWF0 aWsudW5pLXR1ZWJpbmdlbi5kZTAMBgNVHRMBAf8EAjAAMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4GBAF+U og+nqSXj8AYybpjrExesM3rmUQy2JTfnzqV8HdgtGMeovIiGfZfyf5xmhNWKST31+aCQxPrT pNb2IdhPU4Szo/ZCd27mZoDgnVbvdKrQloX4ZYu0QmHCfhvTNxQp6m68yP8Gjz1xgfPw2NRy oD4+RvqCj1Cvhg9mhNUNz2BqMIIDPzCCAqigAwIBAgIBDTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADCB0TEL MAkGA1UEBhMCWkExFTATBgNVBAgTDFdlc3Rlcm4gQ2FwZTESMBAGA1UEBxMJQ2FwZSBUb3du MRowGAYDVQQKExFUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZzEoMCYGA1UECxMfQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBT ZXJ2aWNlcyBEaXZpc2lvbjEkMCIGA1UEAxMbVGhhd3RlIFBlcnNvbmFsIEZyZWVtYWlsIENB MSswKQYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhxwZXJzb25hbC1mcmVlbWFpbEB0aGF3dGUuY29tMB4XDTAzMDcx NzAwMDAwMFoXDTEzMDcxNjIzNTk1OVowYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0 ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVl bWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBMIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQDEpjxVc1X7TrnK mVoeaMB1BHCd3+n/ox7svc31W/Iadr1/DDph8r9RzgHU5VAKMNcCY1osiRVwjt3J8CuFWqo/ cVbLrzwLB+fxH5E2JCoTzyvV84J3PQO+K/67GD4Hv0CAAmTXp6a7n2XRxSpUhQ9IBH+nttE8 YQRAHmQZcmC3+wIDAQABo4GUMIGRMBIGA1UdEwEB/wQIMAYBAf8CAQAwQwYDVR0fBDwwOjA4 oDagNIYyaHR0cDovL2NybC50aGF3dGUuY29tL1RoYXd0ZVBlcnNvbmFsRnJlZW1haWxDQS5j cmwwCwYDVR0PBAQDAgEGMCkGA1UdEQQiMCCkHjAcMRowGAYDVQQDExFQcml2YXRlTGFiZWwy LTEzODANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOBgQBIjNFQg+oLLswNo2asZw9/r6y+whehQ5aUnX9MIbj4 Nh+qLZ82L8D0HFAgk3A8/a3hYWLD2ToZfoSxmRsAxRoLgnSeJVCUYsfbJ3FXJY3dqZw5jowg T2Vfldr394fWxghOrvbqNOUQGls1TXfjViF4gtwhGTXeJLHTHUb/XV9lTzGCA2QwggNgAgEB MHYwYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0 ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBAhA/WhrG FpDK/rOM5sjg4QfiMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggHDMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEw HAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTA4MDIxODE0MzMyNVowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFC7H47YzgUv9 XBvKw+tU0anIVZq9MFIGCSqGSIb3DQEJDzFFMEMwCgYIKoZIhvcNAwcwDgYIKoZIhvcNAwIC AgCAMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgFAMAcGBSsOAwIHMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgEoMIGFBgkrBgEEAYI3 EAQxeDB2MGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUwIwYDVQQKExxUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZyAoUHR5 KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwgRnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBDQQIQ P1oaxhaQyv6zjObI4OEH4jCBhwYLKoZIhvcNAQkQAgsxeKB2MGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUw IwYDVQQKExxUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZyAoUHR5KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUg UGVyc29uYWwgRnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBDQQIQP1oaxhaQyv6zjObI4OEH4jANBgkqhkiG 9w0BAQEFAASCAQB9vfjzhzl9gqSdsn1YJGRgVUh0CKFWbQ4BZ0EVlTJtpY8vmZQvDk7nNub1 0rzJOEOtMPcN7mGWwEDVEeW9Vv7WQfRsFS30NgzxWaaML6Lu9JzfWoAqQ4nVU6cCURgi+7lV 5/ns1idwS0nH6NDxQTQ03tZPzK7qderX6hOUAt1D6dXGY5hB1ZitwjVuMUcf/HCmt0WOiDbi gs6qLBUWmMdAL9KRHRf0gIJKPonQ0EvtbI9g6Kuw8jQxmWj5K5ZIhqAw7WPAi0zE/oicIlni O/PfGBh2BgtgC9MFHE8VGUPdXbX/tsKW20rRLmBDH66TC63lWPRLyB5CDsZfInN8BPl9AAAA AAAA --------------ms000901080209030409070904-- --===============1514293760== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix --===============1514293760==-- A4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQDGXsf0qrAMZM01byj/2AIJGnlwPp4B +fQGtG20T7CjlswJ3RqrcuRCnBM65yqhCdu6hxb6Bf6R6fPFNu0iSP8W6pIFnldo0WpXYqWU GJZ42C0HJm+HHsCBbhkUUla5twars19/GmGs7hOPg1R9md2vM59BXHTF4QNTUdjGta4eBu0i HmfoQu3M27zUT62gZYhnUIbPCf+sj/4i/GjWAJfXOwi+KH0Y/GPaKzDlf+L7Vk6u+v1UFFXW 4VDIr9A/Gh6iNWbxrJIUUb5iE4EEVW25/DfFk6WdFAoDA48Tz/YuSIS36eqAbbCpeDmdEV70 i2a2yU5AV975xLrXMsQ78jYDAgMBAAGjPjA8MCwGA1UdEQQlMCOBIW11ZW56QGluZm9ybWF0 aWsudW5pLXR1ZWJpbmdlbi5kZTAMBgNVHRMBAf8EAjAAMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4GBAF+U og+nqSXj8AYybpjrExesM3rmUQy2JTfnzqV8HdgtGMeovIiGfZfyf5xmhNWKST31+aCQxPrT pNb2IdhPU4Szo/ZCd27mZoDgnVbvdKrQloX4ZYu0QmHCfhvTNxQp6m68yP8Gjz1xgfPw2NRy oD4+RvqCj1Cvhg9mhNUNz2BqMIIDPzCCAqigAwIBAgIBDTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADCB0TEL MAkGA1UEBhMCWkExFTATBgNVBAgTDFdlc3Rlcm4gQ2FwZTESMBAGA1UEBxMJQ2FwZSBUb3du MRowGAYDVQQKExFUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZzEoMCYGA1UECxMfQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBT ZXJ2aWNlcyBEaXZpc2lvbjEkMCIGA1UEAxMbVGhhd3RlIFBlcnNvbmFsIEZyZWVtYWlsIENB MSswKQYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhxwZXJzb25hbC1mcmVlbWFpbEB0aGF3dGUuY29tMB4XDTAzMDcx NzAwMDAwMFoXDTEzMDcxNjIzNTk1OVowYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0 ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVl bWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBMIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQDEpjxVc1X7TrnK mVoeaMB1BHCd3+n/ox7svc31W/Iadr1/DDph8r9RzgHU5VAKMNcCY1osiRVwjt3J8CuFWqo/ cVbLrzwLB+fxH5E2JCoTzyvV84J3PQO+K/67GD4Hv0CAAmTXp6a7n2XRxSpUhQ9IBH+nttE8 YQRAHmQZcmC3+wIDAQABo4GUMIGRMBIGA1UdEwEB/wQIMAYBAf8CAQAwQwYDVR0fBDwwOjA4 oDagNIYyaHR0cDovL2NybC50aGF3dGUuY29tL1RoYXd0ZVBlcnNvbmFsRnJlZW1haWxDQS5j cmwwCwYDVR0PBAQDAgEGMCkGA1UdEQQiMCCkHjAcMRowGAYDVQQDExFQcml2YXRlTGFiZWwy LTEzODANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOBgQBIjNFQg+oLLswNo2asZw9/r6y+whehQ5aUnX9MIbj4 Nh+qLZ82L8D0HFAgk3A8/a3hYWLD2ToZfoSxmRsAxRoLgnSeJVCUYsfbJ3FXJY3dqZw5jowg T2Vfldr394fWxghOrvbqNOUQGls1TXfjViF4gtwhGTXeJLHTHUb/XV9lTzGCA2QwggNgAgEB MHYwYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0 ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBAhA/WhrG FpDK/rOM5sjg4QfiMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggHDMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEw HAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTA4MDIxODE0MzMyNVowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFC7H47YzgUv9 XBvKw+tU0anIVZq9MFIGCSqGSIb3DQEJDzFFMEMwCgYIKoZIhvcNAwcwDgYIKoZIhvcNAwIC AgCAMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgFAMAcGBSsOAwIHMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgEoMIGFBgkrBgEEAYI3 EAQxeDB2MGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUwIwYDVQQKExxUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZyAoUHR5 KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwgRnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBDQQIQ P1oaxhaQyv6zjObI4OEH4jCBhwYLKoZIhvcNAQkQAgsxeKB2MGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUw IwYDVQQKExxUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZyAoUHR5KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUg UGVyc29uYWwgRnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBDQQIQP1oaxhaQyv6zjObI4OEH4jANBgkqhkiG 9w0BAQEFAASCAQB9vfjzhzl9gqSdsn1YJGRgVUh0CKFWbQ4BZ0EVlTJtpY8vmZQvDk7nNub1 0rzJOEOtMPcN7mGWwEDVEeW9Vv7WQfRsFS30NgzxWaaML6Lu9JzfWoAqQ4nVU6cCURgi+7lV 5/ns1idwS0nH6NDxQTQ03tZPzK7qderX6hOUAt1D6dXGY5hB1ZitwjVuMUcf/HCmt0WOiDbi gs6qLBUWmMdAL9KRHRf0gIJKPonQ0EvtbI9g6Kuw8jQxmWj5K5ZIhqAw7WPAi0zE/oicIlni O/PfGBh2BgtgC9MFHE8VGUPdXbX/tsKW20rRLmBDH66TC63lWPRLyB5CDsZfInN8BPl9AAAA AAAA --------------ms000901080209030409070904-- --===============1514293760== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix --===============1514293760==-- From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 19 09:10:35 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 679BB28C67E; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:10:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.347 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.217, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=1, MIME_HTML_MOSTLY=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wo6Ms1z0QDlS; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:10:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1937528C5D9; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:10:33 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0383528C5D9 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:10:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mlpnh8jaR5jq for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:10:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (odd-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.119]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F70E28C4F7 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:10:28 -0800 (PST) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id m1JHAPU15871; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:10:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.61.82.240] (ams3-vpn-dhcp4849.cisco.com [10.61.82.240]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id m1JHAJB21612; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:10:23 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47BB0D79.7030703@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:10:17 +0100 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Windows/20070509) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gerhard Muenz References: <47B5A546.5090704@cisco.com> <47B99735.6050200@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> In-Reply-To: <47B99735.6050200@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> Cc: "ipfix@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [IPFIX] Per-SCTP stream draft: New Template ID SHOULD/MUST be used? X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0774514646==" Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============0774514646== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030906030106080005080604" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030906030106080005080604 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gerhard, You had a series of very good comments, which proves that we're thinking along the same lines. For the everybody's sake, let me take a step back and explain the problems we try to solve by sending template per-SCTP stream. This should answer some questions below, such as "What do you mean by reducing the risk of losing Data Records?" _Problem 1:_ - when a template ID is used by multiple streams, and a template withdrawal message is sent on one of the those streams, then the other streams must allow enough time for the template withdrawal message to reach the collector before they can reuse the template ID, which is something they cannot know. More importantly, the template withdrawal message cannot be sent on the first stream until it knows that all the other streams have transmitted their corresponding data records - which is also impossible to know. It's true that RFC5101 specifies: The Template Withdrawal Message MUST NOT be sent until sufficient time has elapsed to allow the Collecting Process to receive and process the last Data Record using this Template information. This time MUST be configurable. A suitable default value is 5 seconds after the last Data Record has been sent. But it's not always possible to guarantee that 5 seconds is enough. So we might lose data records. _Problem 2:_ In figure 4 of the current draft, the potential head of line blocking could imply that the data records in a different stream might arrive before the template records. In other words, no guarantee that the data records will always arrive after the template records, if the template record and data records are not sent in the same stream. It's true that RFC5101 specifies: The Collecting Process normally receives Template Records from the Exporting Process before receiving Data Records. The Data Records are then decoded and stored by the Collector. If the Template Records have not been received at the time Data Records are received, the Collecting Process MAY store the Data Records for a short period of time and decode them after the Template Records are received. A Collecting Process MUST NOT assume that the Data Set and the associated Template Set (or Options Template Set) are exported in the same IPFIX Message. But we can't guarantee that the Collecting Process will not lose some data records ("MAY store") _ More generic problem:_ Problems 1 and 2 are different problems, but with the same cause: the problems come from data records from the same template ID sent across different streams. Typically, the PSAMP option template record for sampling. This is a current limitation/problem with IPFIX We evaluated whether we can propose some improvements part of this per-SCTP draft, even if the per-SCTP draft goal was to export one template per stream to be able to deduce the data loss for each template record. There are a couple of solutions, with the solution 1 being the preferred one. Hence the reverse order. _Solution 3:_ As explained by Gehrard, look at the export time in the template records, data records, and template withdrawal message. - This implies a more complex collecting process implementation as the old and new template records must kept to compare the time Note: potentially more than two template records must be kept if the definition of the template ID changes frequently - This implies that we loose the real-time decode, as the collecting process must wait for a certain time, just in case a delayed template withdrawal message and a new template record is received. For this reason only, I think this solution is poor - What if data record and template withdraw message were in the same IPFIX message? Probably it'd depend on the order within the message. _Solution 2_ We could propose a series of specifications that would reduce the likelihood that problem 1 or 2 would happen - transmission order is maintained within a stream - redefinition of the Template ID is not encouraged - template withdrawal message SHOULD be sent in the last used stream that carried the template ID to be removed - etc.. The drawback of this solution is that, even if the likelihood is reduced, there is no guarantee that the problem 1 and 2 will not happen. When I posted the initial email from this thread, I was still thinking along this solution 2 _Solution 1_ The template IDs are scoped per stream, next to the the Transport Session and Observation Domain that generated the Template ID. Next to that, the transmission order per stream is maintained In this case, problem 1 and problem 2 will never happen The drawbacks are that - more template ID and records would be used. For example, the sampling option template record would require one template ID per stream and the export the "same" data record values per stream - "reducing redundancy" draft would not work across stream. Is this a big issue, I don't know! Note that there is a simple solution to address those two drawbacks: never send a template withdrawal message, and make those template IDs permanent as long as the SCTP association is up. Nothing is changed on the collector side specifications, as it doesn't have to know that the template IDs are permanent Now, the real question in this solution 1 is: what to do if we can't increase anymore the number of streams in the SCTP association? We export all the newly created template IDs and the associated data records on the stream 0 (as currently specified in the per-SCTP stream) Overloading the stream 0 is not an issue as the SCTP design is such that there is one pool of buffer and all streams will share it, i.e. "if you send 100k in one stream.. or 100k spread over all streams.. it makes no difference" dixit Randy Stewart. Note: stream 0 is mentioned for historical but could very well be another one. I'm not even sure we even need to specify a certain stream Note that on that stream 0, we can't deduce the loss per template. We think that the solution 1 is the best solution to address the problems described Feedback? Regards, Paul and Benoit. > Benoit, all, > > >> During the last IETF meeting, we discussed the following open issue for >> regarding >> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ipfix/draft-claise-ipfix-export-per-sctp-stream-02.txt, >> which concerns a current limitation in [IPFIX-PROTO]: >> >> "Template IDs are unique per SCTP association and per Observation >> Domain. If the Collecting Process receives a Template that has >> already been received but that has not previously been withdrawn >> (i.e., a Template Record from the same Exporter Observation Domain >> with the same Template ID received on the SCTP association), then the >> Collecting Process MUST shut down the association." >> >> >> The current draft specifies: "Redefinition of the Template ID is not >> encouraged. Instead, new Template ID SHOULD be used, until the >> exhaustion of the Template ID space." >> Do we want to put a MUST in that sentence? >> >> IMHO, a MUST would be a plus as: >> - it would considerably reduce the risk of losing Data Records in corner >> cases when Template IDs are applicable across multiple streams >> > > What do you mean by reducing the risk of losing Data Records? > After receiving the Template Withdrawal Message, is not allowed to > decode any further Data Records associated with this Template ID. Hence, > you will always lose Data Records which arrive too late, independently > of the stream. > > >> - the number of bits for the Template ID is huge enough. The Template ID >> would wrap up to the next available Template ID, for which the Template >> Withdraw Message certainly had the time to reach the Collecting Process. >> - the implementation is easy. >> >> Feedback? >> > > According to my understanding, Template IDs can be reused without losing > any Records if the following three conditions are fulfilled: > 1) Template and associated Data Records are sent over the same stream > using ordered delivery. > 2) Reutilization of Template IDs is restricted to the same stream. > 3) "All Template Withdrawal Message" is not used to withdraw Templates > from multiple streams. > > Note that 1) does not imply that there is one stream per Template. > > If any of the above conditions is not fulfilled, Data Records may arrive > before a Template, or after a Template Withdrawal Message. > Furthermore, if a Template ID is reused very quickly, we might have > trouble with some delayed Data Records assigned to the old Template and > arriving after the new Template. > > It would be possible to detect that such delayed Data Records do not > belong to the new Template because by comparing the export times of the > Template and the Data Records. Yet this means that the export time has > to be stored for every Template, and that the Collector must accomplish > this comparison for every Data Record. > > If we do not want to increase the Collector complexity in this manner, > Template IDs should not be reused as long as possible. Using new > Template ID until the exhaustion of the Template ID space achieves this > goal. However, I would not put a "MUST" because under the conditions > mentioned above, I can safely reuse Template IDs whenever I want. > > > Going beyond your question: > > Reading the draft, it is difficult to understand its purpose. If I > understand correctly, it describes how to run IPFIX over multiple SCTP > streams in a beneficial way. Yet, most of section 5 explains common > IPFIX protocol behavior as specified in RFC 5101. It is difficult to see > at which points the draft goes beyond RFC 5101. > > I propose to focus on explaining the recommended usage of SCTP streams, > combined with explanations why this is beneficial. If you want to keep > the detailed description of Exporter and Collector side behavior, make > clear which parts are normal IPFIX behavior and which parts are > according to your recommendations. > > Further comments/questions: > > An Exporter uses multiple streams to export Data Sets. In such > a case, the Observation Domain MUST use the same Observation > Domain ID value on all of the streams it uses. > > This means that only one Observation Domain ID is allowed per > association. What is the reason for this restriction? > > Note: the idea of sending the (Options) Template Records on > every single streams to which the Data Records corresponds to > has been investigated. However, [IPFIX-PROTO] specifies that > the (Options) Templates Records are scoped by Transport Session, > not per stream: > > "Template IDs are unique per SCTP association and per > Observation Domain. ..." > > Actually, RFC 5101 specifies that Template IDs (not Templates!) are > scoped per Transport Session. It does not forbid sending the same Option > Template with different Template IDs over different streams. And this > would solve the issue. > > The Template > Withdrawal Message SHOULD be sent in the last used stream that > carried the Template ID to be removed. > > but later: > > If the Collecting Process receives a Template Withdrawal Message > on a different stream than the one on which the Template is > used, then the Collecting Process MUST shutdown the association. > > You have a SHOULD for the Exporter and a MUST for the Collector. The > described Collector behavior contradicts RFC 5101: "The Template > Withdrawal Message may be sent on any SCTP stream." So probably, the > association should not be shut down. > > If the Metering Process restarts, the Exporting Process MUST > reuse the previously assigned Template ID for each Template and > it MUST reuse the corresponding previously assigned stream for > each Template ID. Alternatively, it MUST withdraw the previously > issued Template IDs by sending Template Withdrawal Message(s) > before reusing them. It can then use any available stream for > the Template ID. > > You have a MUST and an alternative MUST. Which one is the real MUST? Do > we really need this paragraph at all? > > If the measurement parameters change, the Template MUST be > withdrawn (using a Template Withdrawal Message and a new > Template definition) or an unused Template ID MUST be used. > Examples of the measurement changes are: a new sampling rate, a > new flow expiration process, a new filtering definition, etc. If > a Template is changed, a Template Withdrawal Message MUST be > sent to delete the Template. Redefinition of the Template ID is > not encouraged. Instead, new Template ID SHOULD be used, until > the exhaustion of the Template ID space. > > What is the reason for withdrawing Templates just because the > measurement parameters have changed? Wouldn't it be sufficient to send a > reliable Option Data Record with the new measurement parameters? > > Regards, > Gerhard > > --------------030906030106080005080604 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gerhard,

You had a series of very good comments, which proves that we're thinking along the same lines.
For the everybody's sake, let me take a step back and explain the problems we try to solve by sending template per-SCTP stream.
This should answer some questions below, such as "What do you mean by reducing the risk of losing Data Records?"

Problem 1:
- when a template ID is used by multiple streams, and a template withdrawal message is sent on one of the those streams, then the other streams must allow enough time for the template withdrawal message to reach the collector before they can reuse the template ID, which is something they cannot know.
More importantly, the template withdrawal message cannot be sent on the first stream until it knows that all the other streams have transmitted their corresponding data records - which is also impossible to know.

It's true that RFC5101 specifies: 
   The Template Withdrawal Message MUST NOT be sent until sufficient
   time has elapsed to allow the Collecting Process to receive and
   process the last Data Record using this Template information.  This
   time MUST be configurable.  A suitable default value is 5 seconds
   after the last Data Record has been sent.
But it's not always possible to guarantee that 5 seconds is enough. So we might lose data records.

Problem 2:
In figure 4 of the current draft, the potential head of line blocking could imply that the data records in a different stream might arrive before the template records. In other words, no guarantee that the data records will always arrive after the template records, if the template record and data records are not sent in the same stream.

It's true that RFC5101 specifies: 
   The Collecting Process normally receives Template Records from the
   Exporting Process before receiving Data Records.  The Data Records
   are then decoded and stored by the Collector.  If the Template
   Records have not been received at the time Data Records are received,
   the Collecting Process MAY store the Data Records for a short period
   of time and decode them after the Template Records are received.  A
   Collecting Process MUST NOT assume that the Data Set and the
   associated Template Set (or Options Template Set) are exported in the
   same IPFIX Message.
But we can't guarantee that the Collecting Process will not lose some data records ("MAY store")

More generic problem:
Problems 1 and 2 are different problems, but with the same cause: the problems come from data records from the same template ID sent across different streams. Typically, the PSAMP option template record for sampling.
This is a current limitation/problem with IPFIX
We evaluated whether we can propose some improvements part of this per-SCTP draft, even if the per-SCTP draft goal was to export one template per stream to be able to deduce the data loss for each template record.

There are a couple of solutions, with the solution 1 being the preferred one. Hence the reverse order.

Solution 3:
As explained by Gehrard, look at the export time in the template records, data records, and template withdrawal message.
- This implies a more complex collecting process implementation as the old and new template records must kept to compare the time
  Note: potentially more than two template records must be kept if the definition of the template ID changes frequently
- This implies that we loose the real-time decode, as the collecting process must wait for a certain time, just in case a delayed template withdrawal message and a new template record is received. For this reason only, I think this solution is poor
- What if data record and template withdraw message were in the same IPFIX message? Probably it'd depend on the order within the message.


Solution 2
We could propose a series of specifications that would reduce the likelihood that problem 1 or 2 would happen
    - transmission order is maintained within a stream
    - redefinition of the Template ID is not encouraged
    - template withdrawal message SHOULD be sent in the last used stream that carried the template ID to be removed
    - etc..
The drawback of this solution is that, even if the likelihood is reduced, there is no guarantee that the problem 1 and 2 will not happen.
When I posted the initial email from this thread, I was still thinking along this solution 2

Solution 1
The template IDs are scoped per stream, next to the the Transport Session and Observation Domain that generated the Template ID.
Next to that, the transmission order per stream is maintained
In this case, problem 1 and problem 2 will never happen
The drawbacks are that
    - more template ID and records would be used. For example, the sampling option template record would require
      one template ID per stream and the export the "same" data record values per stream
    - "reducing redundancy" draft would not work across stream. Is this a big issue, I don't know!
Note that there is a simple solution to address those two drawbacks: never send a template withdrawal message, and make those template IDs permanent as long as the SCTP association is up. Nothing is changed on the collector side specifications, as it doesn't have to know that the template IDs are permanent
Now, the real question in this solution 1 is: what to do if we can't increase anymore the number of streams in the SCTP association?
We export all the newly created template IDs and the associated data records on the stream 0 (as currently specified in the per-SCTP stream)
Overloading the stream 0 is not an issue as the SCTP design is such that there is one pool of buffer and all streams will share it, i.e. "if you send  100k in one stream.. or 100k spread over all streams.. it makes no difference" dixit Randy Stewart.
Note: stream 0 is mentioned for historical but could very well be another one. I'm not even sure we even need to specify a certain stream
Note that on that stream 0, we can't deduce the loss per template.

We think that the solution 1 is the best solution to address the problems described
Feedback?


Regards, Paul and Benoit.

Benoit, all,

  
During the last IETF meeting, we discussed the following open issue for
regarding
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ipfix/draft-claise-ipfix-export-per-sctp-stream-02.txt,
which concerns a current limitation in [IPFIX-PROTO]:

    "Template IDs are unique per SCTP association and per Observation
    Domain. If the Collecting Process receives a Template that has
    already been received but that has not previously been withdrawn
    (i.e., a Template Record from the same Exporter Observation Domain
    with the same Template ID received on the SCTP association), then the
    Collecting Process MUST shut down the association."


The current draft specifies: "Redefinition of the Template ID is not
encouraged. Instead, new Template ID SHOULD be used, until the
exhaustion of the Template ID space."
Do we want to put a MUST in that sentence?

IMHO, a MUST would be a plus as:
- it would considerably reduce the risk of losing Data Records in corner
cases when Template IDs are applicable across multiple streams
    

What do you mean by reducing the risk of losing Data Records?
After receiving the Template Withdrawal Message, is not allowed to
decode any further Data Records associated with this Template ID. Hence,
you will always lose Data Records which arrive too late, independently
of the stream.

  
- the number of bits for the Template ID is huge enough. The Template ID
would wrap up to the next available Template ID, for which the Template
Withdraw Message certainly had the time to reach the Collecting Process.
- the implementation is easy.

Feedback?
    

According to my understanding, Template IDs can be reused without losing
any Records if the following three conditions are fulfilled:
1) Template and associated Data Records are sent over the same stream
using ordered delivery.
2) Reutilization of Template IDs is restricted to the same stream.
3) "All Template Withdrawal Message" is not used to withdraw Templates
from multiple streams.

Note that 1) does not imply that there is one stream per Template.

If any of the above conditions is not fulfilled, Data Records may arrive
before a Template, or after a Template Withdrawal Message.
Furthermore, if a Template ID is reused very quickly, we might have
trouble with some delayed Data Records assigned to the old Template and
arriving after the new Template.

It would be possible to detect that such delayed Data Records do not
belong to the new Template because by comparing the export times of the
Template and the Data Records. Yet this means that the export time has
to be stored for every Template, and that the Collector must accomplish
this comparison for every Data Record.

If we do not want to increase the Collector complexity in this manner,
Template IDs should not be reused as long as possible. Using new
Template ID until the exhaustion of the Template ID space achieves this
goal. However, I would not put a "MUST" because under the conditions
mentioned above, I can safely reuse Template IDs whenever I want.


Going beyond your question:

Reading the draft, it is difficult to understand its purpose. If I
understand correctly, it describes how to run IPFIX over multiple SCTP
streams in a beneficial way. Yet, most of section 5 explains common
IPFIX protocol behavior as specified in RFC 5101. It is difficult to see
at which points the draft goes beyond RFC 5101.

I propose to focus on explaining the recommended usage of SCTP streams,
combined with explanations why this is beneficial. If you want to keep
the detailed description of Exporter and Collector side behavior, make
clear which parts are normal IPFIX behavior and which parts are
according to your recommendations.

Further comments/questions:

        An Exporter uses multiple streams to export Data Sets.  In such
        a case, the Observation Domain MUST use the same Observation
        Domain ID value on all of the streams it uses.

This means that only one Observation Domain ID is allowed per
association. What is the reason for this restriction?

        Note: the idea of sending the (Options) Template Records on
        every single streams to which the Data Records corresponds to
        has been investigated.  However, [IPFIX-PROTO] specifies that
        the (Options) Templates Records are scoped by Transport Session,
        not per stream:

         "Template IDs are unique per SCTP association and per
          Observation Domain. ..."

Actually, RFC 5101 specifies that Template IDs (not Templates!) are
scoped per Transport Session. It does not forbid sending the same Option
Template with different Template IDs over different streams. And this
would solve the issue.

        The Template
        Withdrawal Message SHOULD be sent in the last used stream that
        carried the Template ID to be removed.

but later:

        If the Collecting Process receives a Template Withdrawal Message
        on a different stream than the one on which the Template is
        used, then the Collecting Process MUST shutdown the association.

You have a SHOULD for the Exporter and a MUST for the Collector. The
described Collector behavior contradicts RFC 5101: "The Template
Withdrawal Message may be sent on any SCTP stream." So probably, the
association should not be shut down.

        If the Metering Process restarts, the Exporting Process MUST
        reuse the previously assigned Template ID for each Template and
        it MUST reuse the corresponding previously assigned stream for
        each Template ID. Alternatively, it MUST withdraw the previously
        issued Template IDs by sending Template Withdrawal Message(s)
        before reusing them. It can then use any available stream for
        the Template ID.

You have a MUST and an alternative MUST. Which one is the real MUST? Do
we really need this paragraph at all?

        If the measurement parameters change, the Template MUST be
        withdrawn (using a Template Withdrawal Message and a new
        Template definition) or an unused Template ID MUST be used.
        Examples of the measurement changes are: a new sampling rate, a
        new flow expiration process, a new filtering definition, etc. If
        a Template is changed, a Template Withdrawal Message MUST be
        sent to delete the Template.  Redefinition of the Template ID is
        not encouraged. Instead, new Template ID SHOULD be used, until
        the exhaustion of the Template ID space.

What is the reason for withdrawing Templates just because the
measurement parameters have changed? Wouldn't it be sufficient to send a
reliable Option Data Record with the new measurement parameters?

Regards,
Gerhard

--------------030906030106080005080604-- --===============0774514646== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix --===============0774514646==-- From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 19 09:10:35 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 679BB28C67E; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:10:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.347 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.217, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=1, MIME_HTML_MOSTLY=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wo6Ms1z0QDlS; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:10:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1937528C5D9; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:10:33 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0383528C5D9 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:10:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mlpnh8jaR5jq for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:10:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (odd-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.119]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F70E28C4F7 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:10:28 -0800 (PST) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id m1JHAPU15871; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:10:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.61.82.240] (ams3-vpn-dhcp4849.cisco.com [10.61.82.240]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id m1JHAJB21612; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:10:23 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47BB0D79.7030703@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:10:17 +0100 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Windows/20070509) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gerhard Muenz References: <47B5A546.5090704@cisco.com> <47B99735.6050200@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> In-Reply-To: <47B99735.6050200@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> Cc: "ipfix@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [IPFIX] Per-SCTP stream draft: New Template ID SHOULD/MUST be used? X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0774514646==" Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============0774514646== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030906030106080005080604" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030906030106080005080604 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gerhard, You had a series of very good comments, which proves that we're thinking along the same lines. For the everybody's sake, let me take a step back and explain the problems we try to solve by sending template per-SCTP stream. This should answer some questions below, such as "What do you mean by reducing the risk of losing Data Records?" _Problem 1:_ - when a template ID is used by multiple streams, and a template withdrawal message is sent on one of the those streams, then the other streams must allow enough time for the template withdrawal message to reach the collector before they can reuse the template ID, which is something they cannot know. More importantly, the template withdrawal message cannot be sent on the first stream until it knows that all the other streams have transmitted their corresponding data records - which is also impossible to know. It's true that RFC5101 specifies: The Template Withdrawal Message MUST NOT be sent until sufficient time has elapsed to allow the Collecting Process to receive and process the last Data Record using this Template information. This time MUST be configurable. A suitable default value is 5 seconds after the last Data Record has been sent. But it's not always possible to guarantee that 5 seconds is enough. So we might lose data records. _Problem 2:_ In figure 4 of the current draft, the potential head of line blocking could imply that the data records in a different stream might arrive before the template records. In other words, no guarantee that the data records will always arrive after the template records, if the template record and data records are not sent in the same stream. It's true that RFC5101 specifies: The Collecting Process normally receives Template Records from the Exporting Process before receiving Data Records. The Data Records are then decoded and stored by the Collector. If the Template Records have not been received at the time Data Records are received, the Collecting Process MAY store the Data Records for a short period of time and decode them after the Template Records are received. A Collecting Process MUST NOT assume that the Data Set and the associated Template Set (or Options Template Set) are exported in the same IPFIX Message. But we can't guarantee that the Collecting Process will not lose some data records ("MAY store") _ More generic problem:_ Problems 1 and 2 are different problems, but with the same cause: the problems come from data records from the same template ID sent across different streams. Typically, the PSAMP option template record for sampling. This is a current limitation/problem with IPFIX We evaluated whether we can propose some improvements part of this per-SCTP draft, even if the per-SCTP draft goal was to export one template per stream to be able to deduce the data loss for each template record. There are a couple of solutions, with the solution 1 being the preferred one. Hence the reverse order. _Solution 3:_ As explained by Gehrard, look at the export time in the template records, data records, and template withdrawal message. - This implies a more complex collecting process implementation as the old and new template records must kept to compare the time Note: potentially more than two template records must be kept if the definition of the template ID changes frequently - This implies that we loose the real-time decode, as the collecting process must wait for a certain time, just in case a delayed template withdrawal message and a new template record is received. For this reason only, I think this solution is poor - What if data record and template withdraw message were in the same IPFIX message? Probably it'd depend on the order within the message. _Solution 2_ We could propose a series of specifications that would reduce the likelihood that problem 1 or 2 would happen - transmission order is maintained within a stream - redefinition of the Template ID is not encouraged - template withdrawal message SHOULD be sent in the last used stream that carried the template ID to be removed - etc.. The drawback of this solution is that, even if the likelihood is reduced, there is no guarantee that the problem 1 and 2 will not happen. When I posted the initial email from this thread, I was still thinking along this solution 2 _Solution 1_ The template IDs are scoped per stream, next to the the Transport Session and Observation Domain that generated the Template ID. Next to that, the transmission order per stream is maintained In this case, problem 1 and problem 2 will never happen The drawbacks are that - more template ID and records would be used. For example, the sampling option template record would require one template ID per stream and the export the "same" data record values per stream - "reducing redundancy" draft would not work across stream. Is this a big issue, I don't know! Note that there is a simple solution to address those two drawbacks: never send a template withdrawal message, and make those template IDs permanent as long as the SCTP association is up. Nothing is changed on the collector side specifications, as it doesn't have to know that the template IDs are permanent Now, the real question in this solution 1 is: what to do if we can't increase anymore the number of streams in the SCTP association? We export all the newly created template IDs and the associated data records on the stream 0 (as currently specified in the per-SCTP stream) Overloading the stream 0 is not an issue as the SCTP design is such that there is one pool of buffer and all streams will share it, i.e. "if you send 100k in one stream.. or 100k spread over all streams.. it makes no difference" dixit Randy Stewart. Note: stream 0 is mentioned for historical but could very well be another one. I'm not even sure we even need to specify a certain stream Note that on that stream 0, we can't deduce the loss per template. We think that the solution 1 is the best solution to address the problems described Feedback? Regards, Paul and Benoit. > Benoit, all, > > >> During the last IETF meeting, we discussed the following open issue for >> regarding >> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ipfix/draft-claise-ipfix-export-per-sctp-stream-02.txt, >> which concerns a current limitation in [IPFIX-PROTO]: >> >> "Template IDs are unique per SCTP association and per Observation >> Domain. If the Collecting Process receives a Template that has >> already been received but that has not previously been withdrawn >> (i.e., a Template Record from the same Exporter Observation Domain >> with the same Template ID received on the SCTP association), then the >> Collecting Process MUST shut down the association." >> >> >> The current draft specifies: "Redefinition of the Template ID is not >> encouraged. Instead, new Template ID SHOULD be used, until the >> exhaustion of the Template ID space." >> Do we want to put a MUST in that sentence? >> >> IMHO, a MUST would be a plus as: >> - it would considerably reduce the risk of losing Data Records in corner >> cases when Template IDs are applicable across multiple streams >> > > What do you mean by reducing the risk of losing Data Records? > After receiving the Template Withdrawal Message, is not allowed to > decode any further Data Records associated with this Template ID. Hence, > you will always lose Data Records which arrive too late, independently > of the stream. > > >> - the number of bits for the Template ID is huge enough. The Template ID >> would wrap up to the next available Template ID, for which the Template >> Withdraw Message certainly had the time to reach the Collecting Process. >> - the implementation is easy. >> >> Feedback? >> > > According to my understanding, Template IDs can be reused without losing > any Records if the following three conditions are fulfilled: > 1) Template and associated Data Records are sent over the same stream > using ordered delivery. > 2) Reutilization of Template IDs is restricted to the same stream. > 3) "All Template Withdrawal Message" is not used to withdraw Templates > from multiple streams. > > Note that 1) does not imply that there is one stream per Template. > > If any of the above conditions is not fulfilled, Data Records may arrive > before a Template, or after a Template Withdrawal Message. > Furthermore, if a Template ID is reused very quickly, we might have > trouble with some delayed Data Records assigned to the old Template and > arriving after the new Template. > > It would be possible to detect that such delayed Data Records do not > belong to the new Template because by comparing the export times of the > Template and the Data Records. Yet this means that the export time has > to be stored for every Template, and that the Collector must accomplish > this comparison for every Data Record. > > If we do not want to increase the Collector complexity in this manner, > Template IDs should not be reused as long as possible. Using new > Template ID until the exhaustion of the Template ID space achieves this > goal. However, I would not put a "MUST" because under the conditions > mentioned above, I can safely reuse Template IDs whenever I want. > > > Going beyond your question: > > Reading the draft, it is difficult to understand its purpose. If I > understand correctly, it describes how to run IPFIX over multiple SCTP > streams in a beneficial way. Yet, most of section 5 explains common > IPFIX protocol behavior as specified in RFC 5101. It is difficult to see > at which points the draft goes beyond RFC 5101. > > I propose to focus on explaining the recommended usage of SCTP streams, > combined with explanations why this is beneficial. If you want to keep > the detailed description of Exporter and Collector side behavior, make > clear which parts are normal IPFIX behavior and which parts are > according to your recommendations. > > Further comments/questions: > > An Exporter uses multiple streams to export Data Sets. In such > a case, the Observation Domain MUST use the same Observation > Domain ID value on all of the streams it uses. > > This means that only one Observation Domain ID is allowed per > association. What is the reason for this restriction? > > Note: the idea of sending the (Options) Template Records on > every single streams to which the Data Records corresponds to > has been investigated. However, [IPFIX-PROTO] specifies that > the (Options) Templates Records are scoped by Transport Session, > not per stream: > > "Template IDs are unique per SCTP association and per > Observation Domain. ..." > > Actually, RFC 5101 specifies that Template IDs (not Templates!) are > scoped per Transport Session. It does not forbid sending the same Option > Template with different Template IDs over different streams. And this > would solve the issue. > > The Template > Withdrawal Message SHOULD be sent in the last used stream that > carried the Template ID to be removed. > > but later: > > If the Collecting Process receives a Template Withdrawal Message > on a different stream than the one on which the Template is > used, then the Collecting Process MUST shutdown the association. > > You have a SHOULD for the Exporter and a MUST for the Collector. The > described Collector behavior contradicts RFC 5101: "The Template > Withdrawal Message may be sent on any SCTP stream." So probably, the > association should not be shut down. > > If the Metering Process restarts, the Exporting Process MUST > reuse the previously assigned Template ID for each Template and > it MUST reuse the corresponding previously assigned stream for > each Template ID. Alternatively, it MUST withdraw the previously > issued Template IDs by sending Template Withdrawal Message(s) > before reusing them. It can then use any available stream for > the Template ID. > > You have a MUST and an alternative MUST. Which one is the real MUST? Do > we really need this paragraph at all? > > If the measurement parameters change, the Template MUST be > withdrawn (using a Template Withdrawal Message and a new > Template definition) or an unused Template ID MUST be used. > Examples of the measurement changes are: a new sampling rate, a > new flow expiration process, a new filtering definition, etc. If > a Template is changed, a Template Withdrawal Message MUST be > sent to delete the Template. Redefinition of the Template ID is > not encouraged. Instead, new Template ID SHOULD be used, until > the exhaustion of the Template ID space. > > What is the reason for withdrawing Templates just because the > measurement parameters have changed? Wouldn't it be sufficient to send a > reliable Option Data Record with the new measurement parameters? > > Regards, > Gerhard > > --------------030906030106080005080604 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gerhard,

You had a series of very good comments, which proves that we're thinking along the same lines.
For the everybody's sake, let me take a step back and explain the problems we try to solve by sending template per-SCTP stream.
This should answer some questions below, such as "What do you mean by reducing the risk of losing Data Records?"

Problem 1:
- when a template ID is used by multiple streams, and a template withdrawal message is sent on one of the those streams, then the other streams must allow enough time for the template withdrawal message to reach the collector before they can reuse the template ID, which is something they cannot know.
More importantly, the template withdrawal message cannot be sent on the first stream until it knows that all the other streams have transmitted their corresponding data records - which is also impossible to know.

It's true that RFC5101 specifies: 
   The Template Withdrawal Message MUST NOT be sent until sufficient
   time has elapsed to allow the Collecting Process to receive and
   process the last Data Record using this Template information.  This
   time MUST be configurable.  A suitable default value is 5 seconds
   after the last Data Record has been sent.
But it's not always possible to guarantee that 5 seconds is enough. So we might lose data records.

Problem 2:
In figure 4 of the current draft, the potential head of line blocking could imply that the data records in a different stream might arrive before the template records. In other words, no guarantee that the data records will always arrive after the template records, if the template record and data records are not sent in the same stream.

It's true that RFC5101 specifies: 
   The Collecting Process normally receives Template Records from the
   Exporting Process before receiving Data Records.  The Data Records
   are then decoded and stored by the Collector.  If the Template
   Records have not been received at the time Data Records are received,
   the Collecting Process MAY store the Data Records for a short period
   of time and decode them after the Template Records are received.  A
   Collecting Process MUST NOT assume that the Data Set and the
   associated Template Set (or Options Template Set) are exported in the
   same IPFIX Message.
But we can't guarantee that the Collecting Process will not lose some data records ("MAY store")

More generic problem:
Problems 1 and 2 are different problems, but with the same cause: the problems come from data records from the same template ID sent across different streams. Typically, the PSAMP option template record for sampling.
This is a current limitation/problem with IPFIX
We evaluated whether we can propose some improvements part of this per-SCTP draft, even if the per-SCTP draft goal was to export one template per stream to be able to deduce the data loss for each template record.

There are a couple of solutions, with the solution 1 being the preferred one. Hence the reverse order.

Solution 3:
As explained by Gehrard, look at the export time in the template records, data records, and template withdrawal message.
- This implies a more complex collecting process implementation as the old and new template records must kept to compare the time
  Note: potentially more than two template records must be kept if the definition of the template ID changes frequently
- This implies that we loose the real-time decode, as the collecting process must wait for a certain time, just in case a delayed template withdrawal message and a new template record is received. For this reason only, I think this solution is poor
- What if data record and template withdraw message were in the same IPFIX message? Probably it'd depend on the order within the message.


Solution 2
We could propose a series of specifications that would reduce the likelihood that problem 1 or 2 would happen
    - transmission order is maintained within a stream
    - redefinition of the Template ID is not encouraged
    - template withdrawal message SHOULD be sent in the last used stream that carried the template ID to be removed
    - etc..
The drawback of this solution is that, even if the likelihood is reduced, there is no guarantee that the problem 1 and 2 will not happen.
When I posted the initial email from this thread, I was still thinking along this solution 2

Solution 1
The template IDs are scoped per stream, next to the the Transport Session and Observation Domain that generated the Template ID.
Next to that, the transmission order per stream is maintained
In this case, problem 1 and problem 2 will never happen
The drawbacks are that
    - more template ID and records would be used. For example, the sampling option template record would require
      one template ID per stream and the export the "same" data record values per stream
    - "reducing redundancy" draft would not work across stream. Is this a big issue, I don't know!
Note that there is a simple solution to address those two drawbacks: never send a template withdrawal message, and make those template IDs permanent as long as the SCTP association is up. Nothing is changed on the collector side specifications, as it doesn't have to know that the template IDs are permanent
Now, the real question in this solution 1 is: what to do if we can't increase anymore the number of streams in the SCTP association?
We export all the newly created template IDs and the associated data records on the stream 0 (as currently specified in the per-SCTP stream)
Overloading the stream 0 is not an issue as the SCTP design is such that there is one pool of buffer and all streams will share it, i.e. "if you send  100k in one stream.. or 100k spread over all streams.. it makes no difference" dixit Randy Stewart.
Note: stream 0 is mentioned for historical but could very well be another one. I'm not even sure we even need to specify a certain stream
Note that on that stream 0, we can't deduce the loss per template.

We think that the solution 1 is the best solution to address the problems described
Feedback?


Regards, Paul and Benoit.

Benoit, all,

  
During the last IETF meeting, we discussed the following open issue for
regarding
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ipfix/draft-claise-ipfix-export-per-sctp-stream-02.txt,
which concerns a current limitation in [IPFIX-PROTO]:

    "Template IDs are unique per SCTP association and per Observation
    Domain. If the Collecting Process receives a Template that has
    already been received but that has not previously been withdrawn
    (i.e., a Template Record from the same Exporter Observation Domain
    with the same Template ID received on the SCTP association), then the
    Collecting Process MUST shut down the association."


The current draft specifies: "Redefinition of the Template ID is not
encouraged. Instead, new Template ID SHOULD be used, until the
exhaustion of the Template ID space."
Do we want to put a MUST in that sentence?

IMHO, a MUST would be a plus as:
- it would considerably reduce the risk of losing Data Records in corner
cases when Template IDs are applicable across multiple streams
    

What do you mean by reducing the risk of losing Data Records?
After receiving the Template Withdrawal Message, is not allowed to
decode any further Data Records associated with this Template ID. Hence,
you will always lose Data Records which arrive too late, independently
of the stream.

  
- the number of bits for the Template ID is huge enough. The Template ID
would wrap up to the next available Template ID, for which the Template
Withdraw Message certainly had the time to reach the Collecting Process.
- the implementation is easy.

Feedback?
    

According to my understanding, Template IDs can be reused without losing
any Records if the following three conditions are fulfilled:
1) Template and associated Data Records are sent over the same stream
using ordered delivery.
2) Reutilization of Template IDs is restricted to the same stream.
3) "All Template Withdrawal Message" is not used to withdraw Templates
from multiple streams.

Note that 1) does not imply that there is one stream per Template.

If any of the above conditions is not fulfilled, Data Records may arrive
before a Template, or after a Template Withdrawal Message.
Furthermore, if a Template ID is reused very quickly, we might have
trouble with some delayed Data Records assigned to the old Template and
arriving after the new Template.

It would be possible to detect that such delayed Data Records do not
belong to the new Template because by comparing the export times of the
Template and the Data Records. Yet this means that the export time has
to be stored for every Template, and that the Collector must accomplish
this comparison for every Data Record.

If we do not want to increase the Collector complexity in this manner,
Template IDs should not be reused as long as possible. Using new
Template ID until the exhaustion of the Template ID space achieves this
goal. However, I would not put a "MUST" because under the conditions
mentioned above, I can safely reuse Template IDs whenever I want.


Going beyond your question:

Reading the draft, it is difficult to understand its purpose. If I
understand correctly, it describes how to run IPFIX over multiple SCTP
streams in a beneficial way. Yet, most of section 5 explains common
IPFIX protocol behavior as specified in RFC 5101. It is difficult to see
at which points the draft goes beyond RFC 5101.

I propose to focus on explaining the recommended usage of SCTP streams,
combined with explanations why this is beneficial. If you want to keep
the detailed description of Exporter and Collector side behavior, make
clear which parts are normal IPFIX behavior and which parts are
according to your recommendations.

Further comments/questions:

        An Exporter uses multiple streams to export Data Sets.  In such
        a case, the Observation Domain MUST use the same Observation
        Domain ID value on all of the streams it uses.

This means that only one Observation Domain ID is allowed per
association. What is the reason for this restriction?

        Note: the idea of sending the (Options) Template Records on
        every single streams to which the Data Records corresponds to
        has been investigated.  However, [IPFIX-PROTO] specifies that
        the (Options) Templates Records are scoped by Transport Session,
        not per stream:

         "Template IDs are unique per SCTP association and per
          Observation Domain. ..."

Actually, RFC 5101 specifies that Template IDs (not Templates!) are
scoped per Transport Session. It does not forbid sending the same Option
Template with different Template IDs over different streams. And this
would solve the issue.

        The Template
        Withdrawal Message SHOULD be sent in the last used stream that
        carried the Template ID to be removed.

but later:

        If the Collecting Process receives a Template Withdrawal Message
        on a different stream than the one on which the Template is
        used, then the Collecting Process MUST shutdown the association.

You have a SHOULD for the Exporter and a MUST for the Collector. The
described Collector behavior contradicts RFC 5101: "The Template
Withdrawal Message may be sent on any SCTP stream." So probably, the
association should not be shut down.

        If the Metering Process restarts, the Exporting Process MUST
        reuse the previously assigned Template ID for each Template and
        it MUST reuse the corresponding previously assigned stream for
        each Template ID. Alternatively, it MUST withdraw the previously
        issued Template IDs by sending Template Withdrawal Message(s)
        before reusing them. It can then use any available stream for
        the Template ID.

You have a MUST and an alternative MUST. Which one is the real MUST? Do
we really need this paragraph at all?

        If the measurement parameters change, the Template MUST be
        withdrawn (using a Template Withdrawal Message and a new
        Template definition) or an unused Template ID MUST be used.
        Examples of the measurement changes are: a new sampling rate, a
        new flow expiration process, a new filtering definition, etc. If
        a Template is changed, a Template Withdrawal Message MUST be
        sent to delete the Template.  Redefinition of the Template ID is
        not encouraged. Instead, new Template ID SHOULD be used, until
        the exhaustion of the Template ID space.

What is the reason for withdrawing Templates just because the
measurement parameters have changed? Wouldn't it be sufficient to send a
reliable Option Data Record with the new measurement parameters?

Regards,
Gerhard

--------------030906030106080005080604-- --===============0774514646== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix --===============0774514646==-- From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 19 14:57:45 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 955F228C23C; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:57:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.354 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.354 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.209, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=1, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uQcpFEx9j9f9; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:57:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CA023A6958; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:57:44 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AF523A6AC5 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:57:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lTY50Y9clUMb for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:57:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (odd-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.119]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AC513A6958 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:56:46 -0800 (PST) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id m1JMuhV15862 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:56:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.61.64.134] (ams3-vpn-dhcp134.cisco.com [10.61.64.134]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id m1JMufB28509; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:56:41 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47BB5EA7.5000701@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:56:39 +0100 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Windows/20070509) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "ipfix@ietf.org" Subject: [IPFIX] New draft: New Information Elements from the IPFIX Information Model X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1993763554==" Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1993763554== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040209010904070004090501" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040209010904070004090501 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear all, A new IPFIX-related draft has been posted. RFC 5102 specifies in section 7.1: The specification of new IPFIX Information Elements MUST use the template specified in Section 2.1 and MUST be published using a well-established and persistent publication medium. ... And this draft draft-aitken-ipfix-new-infos-01.txt is the well persistent publication medium. ;-) Regards, Benoit. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-aitken-ipfix-new-infos-01 Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 07:30:27 -0800 (PST) From: IETF I-D Submission Tool To: bclaise@cisco.com CC: paitken@cisco.com A new version of I-D, draft-aitken-ipfix-new-infos-01.txt has been successfuly submitted by Benoit Claise and posted to theFrom ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 19 14:57:45 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 955F228C23C; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:57:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.354 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.354 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.209, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=1, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uQcpFEx9j9f9; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:57:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CA023A6958; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:57:44 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AF523A6AC5 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:57:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lTY50Y9clUMb for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:57:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (odd-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.119]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AC513A6958 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:56:46 -0800 (PST) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id m1JMuhV15862 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:56:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.61.64.134] (ams3-vpn-dhcp134.cisco.com [10.61.64.134]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id m1JMufB28509; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:56:41 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47BB5EA7.5000701@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:56:39 +0100 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Windows/20070509) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "ipfix@ietf.org" Subject: [IPFIX] New draft: New Information Elements from the IPFIX Information Model X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1993763554==" Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1993763554== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040209010904070004090501" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040209010904070004090501 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear all, A new IPFIX-related draft has been posted. RFC 5102 specifies in section 7.1: The specification of new IPFIX Information Elements MUST use the template specified in Section 2.1 and MUST be published using a well-established and persistent publication medium. ... And this draft draft-aitken-ipfix-new-infos-01.txt is the well persistent publication medium. ;-) Regards, Benoit. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-aitken-ipfix-new-infos-01 Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 07:30:27 -0800 (PST) From: IETF I-D Submission Tool To: bclaise@cisco.com CC: paitken@cisco.com A new version of I-D, draft-aitken-ipfix-new-infos-01.txt has been successfuly submitted by Benoit Claise and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-aitken-ipfix-new-infos Revision: 01 Title: New Information Elements from the IPFIX Information Model Creation_date: 2008-02-18 WG ID: Independent Submission Number_of_pages: 26 Abstract: This document specifies the IPFIX protocol that serves for transmitting IP traffic flow information over the network. In order Aitken, Claise Standard Track [page 1] New Information Elements for the IPFIX Information Model February 2008 to transmit IP traffic flow information from an exporting process to an information collecting process, a common representation of flow data and a standard means of communicating them is required. This document describes how the IPFIX data and templates records are carried over a number of transport protocols from an IPFIX exporting process to an IPFIX collecting process. Conventions used in this document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. The IETF Secretariat. --------------040209010904070004090501 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear all,

A new IPFIX-related draft has been posted.
RFC 5102 specifies in section 7.1:

   The specification of new IPFIX Information Elements MUST use the
   template specified in Section 2.1 and MUST be published using a
   well-established and persistent publication medium.  ...

And this draft draft-aitken-ipfix-new-infos-01.txt is the well persistent publication medium. ;-)

Regards, Benoit.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-aitken-ipfix-new-infos-01
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 07:30:27 -0800 (PST)
From: IETF I-D Submission Tool <idsubmission@ietf.org>
To: bclaise@cisco.com
CC: paitken@cisco.com 


A new version of I-D, draft-aitken-ipfix-new-infos-01.txt has been successfuly submitted by Benoit Claise and posted to the IETF repository.

Filename:	 draft-aitken-ipfix-new-infos
Revision:	 01
Title:		 New Information Elements from the IPFIX Information Model
Creation_date:	 2008-02-18
WG ID:		 Independent Submission
Number_of_pages: 26

Abstract:
This document specifies the IPFIX protocol that serves for 
transmitting IP traffic flow information over the network.  In order 

 
 
  Aitken, Claise



Standard Track





  [page 1] 
New Information Elements for the IPFIX Information Model  February 2008 

to transmit IP traffic flow information from an exporting process to 
an information collecting process, a common representation of flow 
data and a standard means of communicating them is required. This 
document describes how the IPFIX data and templates records are 
carried over a number of transport protocols from an IPFIX exporting 
process to an IPFIX collecting process. 
 
 Conventions used in this document 
  
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED" IETF repository.

Filename:	 draft-aitken-ipfix-new-infos
Revision:	 01
Title:		 New Information Elements from the IPFIX Information Model
Creation_date:	 2008-02-18
WG ID:		 Independent Submission
Number_of_pages: 26

Abstract:
This document specifies the IPFIX protocol that serves for 
transmitting IP traffic flow information over the network.  In order 

 
 
  Aitken, Claise



Standard Track





  [page 1] 
New Information Elements for the IPFIX Information Model  February 2008 

to transmit IP traffic flow information from an exporting process to 
an information collecting process, a common representation of flow 
data and a standard means of communicating them is required. This 
document describes how the IPFIX data and templates records are 
carried over a number of transport protocols from an IPFIX exporting 
process to an IPFIX collecting process. 
 
 Conventions used in this document 
  
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
                                                                                  


The IETF Secretariat.



--------------040209010904070004090501
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit






Dear all,



A new IPFIX-related draft has been posted.

RFC 5102 specifies in section 7.1:




   The specification of new IPFIX Information Elements MUST use the


   template specified in Section 2.1 and MUST be published using a


   well-established and persistent publication medium.  ...



And this draft draft-aitken-ipfix-new-infos-01.txt
is the well persistent publication medium. ;-)



Regards, Benoit.

-------- Original Message --------


  
    

      Subject: 
      New Version Notification for draft-aitken-ipfix-new-infos-01
    

    

      Date: 
      Tue, 19 Feb 2008 07:30:27 -0800 (PST)
    

    

      From: 
      IETF I-D Submission Tool <idsubmission@ietf.org>
    

    

      To: 
      bclaise@cisco.com
    

    

      CC: 
      paitken@cisco.com
    

  







A new version of I-D, draft-aitken-ipfix-new-infos-01.txt has been successfuly submitted by Benoit Claise and posted to the IETF repository.

Filename:	 draft-aitken-ipfix-new-infos
Revision:	 01
Title:		 New Information Elements from the IPFIX Information Model
Creation_date:	 2008-02-18
WG ID:		 Independent Submission
Number_of_pages: 26

Abstract:
This document specifies the IPFIX protocol that serves for 
transmitting IP traffic flow information over the network.  In order 

 
 
  Aitken, Claise



Standard Track





  [page 1] 
New Information Elements for the IPFIX Information Model  February 2008 

to transmit IP traffic flow information from an exporting process to 
an information collecting process, a common representation of flow 
data and a standard means of communicating them is required. This 
document describes how the IPFIX data and templates records are 
carried over a number of transport protocols from an IPFIX exporting 
process to an IPFIX collecting process. 
 
 Conventions used in this document 
  
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
                                                                                  


The IETF Secretariat.






--------------040209010904070004090501--

--===============1993763554==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
IPFIX@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix

--===============1993763554==--


, "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
                                                                                  


The IETF Secretariat.
--------------040209010904070004090501-- --===============1993763554== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix --===============1993763554==-- From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 20 02:02:57 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FCC93A699E; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 02:02:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.921 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.921 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.484, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rSFpLerlOOXn; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 02:02:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A54028B797; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 02:02:46 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 248B43A6E46 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 02:02:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q2YoBPlGzz8r for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 02:02:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx06.uni-tuebingen.de (mx06.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.3.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A7423A6999 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 02:01:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from [134.2.172.138] (u-172-c138.cs.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.172.138]) by mx06.uni-tuebingen.de (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m1KA1Eve026990; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:01:14 +0100 Message-ID: <47BBFA64.1080807@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:01:08 +0100 From: Gerhard Muenz User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Benoit Claise References: <47B5A546.5090704@cisco.com> <47B99735.6050200@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> <47BB0D79.7030703@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <47BB0D79.7030703@cisco.com> X-AntiVirus: checked by AntiVir MailGate (version: 2.1.2-11; AVE: 7.6.0.67; VDF: 7.0.2.163; host: mx06) Cc: "ipfix@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [IPFIX] Per-SCTP stream draft: New Template ID SHOULD/MUST be used? X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1067706126==" Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --===============1067706126== Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms070203060504060106030805" This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms070203060504060106030805 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Benoit, Paul, > Solution 1 > The template IDs are scoped per stream, next to the the Transport > Session and Observation Domain that generated the Template ID. Do you mean to change the scope of Template IDs as specified in RFC5101? In my opinion, we should not change the protocol specifications as long as we can achieve the same result by a clever usage of the current protocol. Changing the scope of Template IDs is necessary only if you want to use the same Template ID on different streams. However, I assume that the Template ID space is large enough (and much larger than the number of available streams) to assign unique IDs per Transport Session. Then, if a given Template ID is used, withdrawn, and reused exclusively on one stream, we achieve the same result. > Next to that, the transmission order per stream is maintained Yes, that is a necessary condition. > In this case, problem 1 and problem 2 will never happen > The drawbacks are that > - more template ID and records would be used. For example, the > sampling option template record would require > one template ID per stream and the export the "same" data record > values per stream > - "reducing redundancy" draft would not work across stream. Is this= > a big issue, I don't know! > Note that there is a simple solution to address those two drawbacks: > never send a template withdrawal message, and make those template IDs > permanent as long as the SCTP association is up. Nothing is changed on > the collector side specifications, as it doesn't have to know that the > template IDs are permanent It is a trade-off because now, the collector has to store numerous unused Templates until the end of the association. It should be up to the administrator's preferences if he prefers not to withdraw Templates because he wants to use reducing redundancy with the same Template over multiple streams and pay for it with higher memory requirements at the collector. > Now, the real question in this solution 1 is: what to do if we can't > increase anymore the number of streams in the SCTP association? >=20 > We export all the newly created template IDs and the associated dat= a > records on the stream 0 (as currently specified in the per-SCTP str= eam) > Overloading the stream 0 is not an issue as the SCTP design is such= > that there is one pool of buffer and all streams will share it, i.e= =2E > "if you send 100k in one stream.. or 100k spread over all streams.= =2E > it makes no difference" dixit Randy Stewart. > Note: stream 0 is mentioned for historical but could very well be > another one. I'm not even sure we even need to specify a certain st= ream > Note that on that stream 0, we can't deduce the loss per template. The main advantage of using separate streams for different Templates is that you can calculate the record loss per Template. This might not be required for all Templates. So the administrator can chose for which Templates he wants to have a separate stream. He can also group several Templates in one stream if the loss rate for the whole group is sufficient for the statistics. We also need to add that "All Template Withdrawal Message" is not used. Regards, Gerhard --=20 Dipl.-Ing. Gerhard M=FCnz Computer Networks and Internet Wilhelm Schickard Institute for Computer Science University of Tuebingen Sand 13 (Room B309), D-72076 Tuebingen, Germany Phone: +49 7071 29-70534 Fax: +49 7071 29-5220 E-mail: muenz@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de WWW: http://net.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/~muenz --------------ms070203060504060106030805 Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIJdTCC AxUwggJ+oAMCAQICED9aGsYWkMr+s4zmyODhB+IwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwYjELMAkGA1UE BhMCWkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMT I1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBMB4XDTA4MDIxMzE1MTUxN1oX DTA5MDIxMjE1MTUxN1owbDEOMAwGA1UEBBMFTXVlbnoxEDAOBgNVBCoTB0dlcmhhcmQxFjAU BgNVBAMTDUdlcmhhcmQgTXVlbnoxMDAuBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWIW11ZW56QGluZm9ybWF0aWsu dW5pLXR1ZWJpbmdlbi5kZTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBAMZex/Sq sAxkzTVvKP/YAgkaeXA+ngH59Aa0bbRPsKOWzAndGqty5EKcEzrnKqEJ27qHFvoF/pHp88U2 7SJI/xbqkgWeV2jRaldipZQYlnjYLQcmb4cewIFuGRRSVrm3BquzX38aYazuE4+DVH2Z3a8z n0FcdMXhA1NR2Ma1rh4G7SIeZ+hC7czbvNRPraBliGdQhs8J/6yP/iL8aNYAl9c7CL4ofRj8 Y9orMOV/4vtWTq76/VQUVdbhUMiv0D8aHqI1ZvGskhRRvmITgQRVbbn8N8WTpZ0UCgMDjxPP 9i5IhLfp6oBtsKl4OZ0RXvSLZrbJTkBX3vnEutcyxDvyNgMCAwEAAaM+MDwwLAYDVR0RBCUw I4EhbXVlbnpAaW5mb3JtYXRpay51bmktdHVlYmluZ2VuLmRlMAwGA1UdEwEB/wQCMAAwDQYJ KoZIhvcNAQEFBQADgYEAX5SiD6epJePwBjJumOsTF6wzeuZRDLYlN+fOpXwd2C0Yx6i8iIZ9 l/J/nGaE1YpJPfX5oJDE+tOk1vYh2E9ThLOj9kJ3buZmgOCdVu90qtCWhfhli7RCYcJ+G9M3 FCnqbrzI/waPPXGB8/DY1HKgPj5G+oKPUK+GD2aE1Q3PYGowggMVMIICfqADAgECAhA/WhrG FpDK/rOM5sjg4QfiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUwIwYDVQQKExxU aGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZyAoUHR5KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwg RnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBDQTAeFw0wODAyMTMxNTE1MTdaFw0wOTAyMTIxNTE1MTdaMGwx DjAMBgNVBAQTBU11ZW56MRAwDgYDVQQqEwdHZXJoYXJkMRYwFAYDVQQDEw1HZXJoYXJkIE11 ZW56MTAwLgYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFiFtdWVuekBpbmZvcm1hdGlrLnVuaS10dWViaW5nZW4uZGUw ggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQDGXsf0qrAMZM01byj/2AIJGnlwPp4B +fQGtG20T7CjlswJ3RqrcuRCnBM65yqhCdu6hxb6Bf6R6fPFNu0iSP8W6pIFnldo0WpXYqWU GJZ42C0HJm+HHsCBbhkUUla5twars19/GmGs7hOPg1R9md2vM59BXHTF4QNTUdjGta4eBu0i HmfoQu3M27zUT62gZYhnUIbPCf+sj/4i/GjWAJfXOwi+KH0Y/GPaKzDlf+L7Vk6u+v1UFFXW 4VDIr9A/Gh6iNWbxrJIUUb5iE4EEVW25/DfFk6WdFAoDA48Tz/YuSIS36eqAbbCpeDmdEV70 i2a2yU5AV975xLrXMsQ78jYDAgMBAAGjPjA8MCwGA1UdEQQlMCOBIW11ZW56QGluZm9ybWF0 aWsudW5pLXR1ZWJpbmdlbi5kZTAMBgNVHRMBAf8EAjAAMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4GBAF+U og+nqSXj8AYybpjrExesM3rmUQy2JTfnzqV8HdgtGMeovIiGfZfyf5xmhNWKST31+aCQxPrT pNb2IdhPU4Szo/ZCd27mZoDgnVbvdKrQloX4ZYu0QmHCfhvTNxQp6m68yP8Gjz1xgfPw2NRy oD4+RvqCj1Cvhg9mhNUNz2BqMIIDPzCCAqigAwIBAgIBDTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADCB0TEL MAkGA1UEBhMCWkExFTATBgNVBAgTDFdlc3Rlcm4gQ2FwZTESMBAGA1UEBxMJQ2FwZSBUb3du MRowGAYDVQQKExFUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZzEoMCYGA1UECxMfQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBT ZXJ2aWNlcyBEaXZpc2lvbjEkMCIGA1UEAxMbVGhhd3RlIFBlcnNvbmFsIEZyZWVtYWlsIENB MSswKQYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhxwZXJzb25hbC1mcmVlbWFpbEB0aGF3dGUuY29tMB4XDTAzMDcx NzAwMDAwMFoXDTEzMDcxNjIzNTk1OVowYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0 ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVl bWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBMIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQDEpjxVc1X7TrnK mVoeaMB1BHCd3+n/ox7svc31W/Iadr1/DDph8r9RzgHU5VAKMNcCY1osiRVwjt3J8CuFWqo/ cVbLrzwLB+fxH5E2JCoTzyvV84J3PQO+K/67GD4Hv0CAAmTXp6a7n2XRxSpUhQ9IBH+nttE8 YQRAHmQZcmC3+wIDAQABo4GUMIGRMBIGA1UdEwEB/wQIMAYBAf8CAQAwQwYDVR0fBDwwOjA4 oDagNIYyaHR0cDovL2NybC50aGF3dGUuY29tL1RoYXd0ZVBlcnNvbmFsRnJlZW1haWxDQS5j cmwwCwYDVR0PBAQDAgEGMCkGA1UdEQQiMCCkHjAcMRowGAYDVQQDExFQcml2YXRlTGFiZWwy LTEzODANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOBgQBIjNFQg+oLLswNo2asZw9/r6y+whehQ5aUnX9MIbj4 Nh+qLZ82L8D0HFAgk3A8/a3hYWLD2ToZfoSxmRsAxRoLgnSeJVCUYsfbJ3FXJY3dqZw5jowg T2Vfldr394fWxghOrvbqNOUQGls1TXfjViF4gtwhGTXeJLHTHUb/XV9lTzGCA2QwggNgAgEB MHYwYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0 ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBAhA/WhrG FpDK/rOM5sjg4QfiMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggHDMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEw HAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTA4MDIyMDEwMDEwOFowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFCXMV6c8Q57x 3DhKTUfpt1a4N5rsMFIGCSqGSIb3DQEJDzFFMEMwCgYIKoZIhvcNAwcwDgYIKoZIhvcNAwIC AgCAMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgFAMAcGBSsOAwIHMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgEoMIGFBgkrBgEEAYI3 EAQxeDB2MGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUwIwYDVQQKExxUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZyAoUHR5 KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwgRnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBDQQIQ P1oaxhaQyv6zjObI4OEH4jCBhwYLKoZIhvcNAQkQAgsxeKB2MGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUw IwYDVQQKExxUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZyAoUHR5KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUg UGVyc29uYWwgRnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBDQQIQP1oaxhaQyv6zjObI4OEH4jANBgkqhkiG 9w0BAQEFAASCAQCzkdiIfkAeEWIYcx8eHPDHFQltVxzIyulDlMfjbT41gexChGUVVav4Xa94 /1m0iSI0Wn1c1W8CoPtaHkCztwqLYWDDQiKUdskPQptjzG4JIV8HbuSLA+h7B3RcpRQ64gPS 3YPp/4LJy7yC0rutzKqvai/ER0qWIs4covXEwf36OOlS3iyCtPSivb0HchwsP6JN5wZQkXpO TLEZHfkF61FJSBIIvf8lMiIglvtyxWdbmAhBAOoWc/xtuxdSPeLNGz2h5uH0kDmYAtisyeBP Iq/6oZjpTCDkaWNJJ3aRk7Y9LNNWFtbRKGYLDY6waTn/AeUTHTNL+/7EmEaYEA0WooJeAAAA AAAA --------------ms070203060504060106030805-- --===============1067706126== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix --===============1067706126==-- From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 20 02:02:57 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FCC93A699E; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 02:02:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.921 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.921 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.484, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rSFpLerlOOXn; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 02:02:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A54028B797; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 02:02:46 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 248B43A6E46 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 02:02:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q2YoBPlGzz8r for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 02:02:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx06.uni-tuebingen.de (mx06.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.3.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A7423A6999 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 02:01:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from [134.2.172.138] (u-172-c138.cs.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.172.138]) by mx06.uni-tuebingen.de (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m1KA1Eve026990; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:01:14 +0100 Message-ID: <47BBFA64.1080807@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:01:08 +0100 From: Gerhard Muenz User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Benoit Claise References: <47B5A546.5090704@cisco.com> <47B99735.6050200@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> <47BB0D79.7030703@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <47BB0D79.7030703@cisco.com> X-AntiVirus: checked by AntiVir MailGate (version: 2.1.2-11; AVE: 7.6.0.67; VDF: 7.0.2.163; host: mx06) Cc: "ipfix@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [IPFIX] Per-SCTP stream draft: New Template ID SHOULD/MUST be used? X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1067706126==" Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --===============1067706126== Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms070203060504060106030805" This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms070203060504060106030805 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Benoit, Paul, > Solution 1 > The template IDs are scoped per stream, next to the the Transport > Session and Observation Domain that generated the Template ID. Do you mean to change the scope of Template IDs as specified in RFC5101? In my opinion, we should not change the protocol specifications as long as we can achieve the same result by a clever usage of the current protocol. Changing the scope of Template IDs is necessary only if you want to use the same Template ID on different streams. However, I assume that the Template ID space is large enough (and much larger than the number of available streams) to assign unique IDs per Transport Session. Then, if a given Template ID is used, withdrawn, and reused exclusively on one stream, we achieve the same result. > Next to that, the transmission order per stream is maintained Yes, that is a necessary condition. > In this case, problem 1 and problem 2 will never happen > The drawbacks are that > - more template ID and records would be used. For example, the > sampling option template record would require > one template ID per stream and the export the "same" data record > values per stream > - "reducing redundancy" draft would not work across stream. Is this= > a big issue, I don't know! > Note that there is a simple solution to address those two drawbacks: > never send a template withdrawal message, and make those template IDs > permanent as long as the SCTP association is up. Nothing is changed on > the collector side specifications, as it doesn't have to know that the > template IDs are permanent It is a trade-off because now, the collector has to store numerous unused Templates until the end of the association. It should be up to the administrator's preferences if he prefers not to withdraw Templates because he wants to use reducing redundancy with the same Template over multiple streams and pay for it with higher memory requirements at the collector. > Now, the real question in this solution 1 is: what to do if we can't > increase anymore the number of streams in the SCTP association? >=20 > We export all the newly created template IDs and the associated dat= a > records on the stream 0 (as currently specified in the per-SCTP str= eam) > Overloading the stream 0 is not an issue as the SCTP design is such= > that there is one pool of buffer and all streams will share it, i.e= =2E > "if you send 100k in one stream.. or 100k spread over all streams.= =2E > it makes no difference" dixit Randy Stewart. > Note: stream 0 is mentioned for historical but could very well be > another one. I'm not even sure we even need to specify a certain st= ream > Note that on that stream 0, we can't deduce the loss per template. The main advantage of using separate streams for different Templates is that you can calculate the record loss per Template. This might not be required for all Templates. So the administrator can chose for which Templates he wants to have a separate stream. He can also group several Templates in one stream if the loss rate for the whole group is sufficient for the statistics. We also need to add that "All Template Withdrawal Message" is not used. Regards, Gerhard --=20 Dipl.-Ing. Gerhard M=FCnz Computer Networks and Internet Wilhelm Schickard Institute for Computer Science University of Tuebingen Sand 13 (Room B309), D-72076 Tuebingen, Germany Phone: +49 7071 29-70534 Fax: +49 7071 29-5220 E-mail: muenz@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de WWW: http://net.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/~muenz --------------ms070203060504060106030805 Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIJdTCC AxUwggJ+oAMCAQICED9aGsYWkMr+s4zmyODhB+IwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwYjELMAkGA1UE BhMCWkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMT I1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBMB4XDTA4MDIxMzE1MTUxN1oX DTA5MDIxMjE1MTUxN1owbDEOMAwGA1UEBBMFTXVlbnoxEDAOBgNVBCoTB0dlcmhhcmQxFjAU BgNVBAMTDUdlcmhhcmQgTXVlbnoxMDAuBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWIW11ZW56QGluZm9ybWF0aWsu dW5pLXR1ZWJpbmdlbi5kZTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBAMZex/Sq sAxkzTVvKP/YAgkaeXA+ngH59Aa0bbRPsKOWzAndGqty5EKcEzrnKqEJ27qHFvoF/pHp88U2 7SJI/xbqkgWeV2jRaldipZQYlnjYLQcmb4cewIFuGRRSVrm3BquzX38aYazuE4+DVH2Z3a8z n0FcdMXhA1NR2Ma1rh4G7SIeZ+hC7czbvNRPraBliGdQhs8J/6yP/iL8aNYAl9c7CL4ofRj8 Y9orMOV/4vtWTq76/VQUVdbhUMiv0D8aHqI1ZvGskhRRvmITgQRVbbn8N8WTpZ0UCgMDjxPP 9i5IhLfp6oBtsKl4OZ0RXvSLZrbJTkBX3vnEutcyxDvyNgMCAwEAAaM+MDwwLAYDVR0RBCUw I4EhbXVlbnpAaW5mb3JtYXRpay51bmktdHVlYmluZ2VuLmRlMAwGA1UdEwEB/wQCMAAwDQYJ KoZIhvcNAQEFBQADgYEAX5SiD6epJePwBjJumOsTF6wzeuZRDLYlN+fOpXwd2C0Yx6i8iIZ9 l/J/nGaE1YpJPfX5oJDE+tOk1vYh2E9ThLOj9kJ3buZmgOCdVu90qtCWhfhli7RCYcJ+G9M3 FCnqbrzI/waPPXGB8/DY1HKgPj5G+oKPUK+GD2aE1Q3PYGowggMVMIICfqADAgECAhA/WhrG FpDK/rOM5sjg4QfiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUwIwYDVQQKExxU aGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZyAoUHR5KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwg RnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBDQTAeFw0wODAyMTMxNTE1MTdaFw0wOTAyMTIxNTE1MTdaMGwx DjAMBgNVBAQTBU11ZW56MRAwDgYDVQQqEwdHZXJoYXJkMRYwFAYDVQQDEw1HZXJoYXJkIE11 ZW56MTAwLgYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFiFtdWVuekBpbmZvcm1hdGlrLnVuaS10dWViaW5nZW4uZGUw ggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQDGXsf0qrAMZM01byj/2AIJGnlwPp4B +fQGtG20T7CjlswJ3RqrcuRCnBM65yqhCdu6hxb6Bf6R6fPFNu0iSP8W6pIFnldo0WpXYqWU GJZ42C0HJm+HHsCBbhkUUla5twars19/GmGs7hOPg1R9md2vM59BXHTF4QNTUdjGta4eBu0i HmfoQu3M27zUT62gZYhnUIbPCf+sj/4i/GjWAJfXOwi+KH0Y/GPaKzDlf+L7Vk6u+v1UFFXW 4VDIr9A/Gh6iNWbxrJIUUb5iE4EEVW25/DfFk6WdFAoDA48Tz/YuSIS36eqAbbCpeDmdEV70 i2a2yU5AV975xLrXMsQ78jYDAgMBAAGjPjA8MCwGA1UdEQQlMCOBIW11ZW56QGluZm9ybWF0 aWsudW5pLXR1ZWJpbmdlbi5kZTAMBgNVHRMBAf8EAjAAMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4GBAF+U og+nqSXj8AYybpjrExesM3rmUQy2JTfnzqV8HdgtGMeovIiGfZfyf5xmhNWKST31+aCQxPrT pNb2IdhPU4Szo/ZCd27mZoDgnVbvdKrQloX4ZYu0QmHCfhvTNxQp6m68yP8Gjz1xgfPw2NRy oD4+RvqCj1Cvhg9mhNUNz2BqMIIDPzCCAqigAwIBAgIBDTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADCB0TEL MAkGA1UEBhMCWkExFTATBgNVBAgTDFdlc3Rlcm4gQ2FwZTESMBAGA1UEBxMJQ2FwZSBUb3du MRowGAYDVQQKExFUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZzEoMCYGA1UECxMfQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBT ZXJ2aWNlcyBEaXZpc2lvbjEkMCIGA1UEAxMbVGhhd3RlIFBlcnNvbmFsIEZyZWVtYWlsIENB MSswKQYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhxwZXJzb25hbC1mcmVlbWFpbEB0aGF3dGUuY29tMB4XDTAzMDcx NzAwMDAwMFoXDTEzMDcxNjIzNTk1OVowYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0 ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVl bWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBMIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQDEpjxVc1X7TrnK mVoeaMB1BHCd3+n/ox7svc31W/Iadr1/DDph8r9RzgHU5VAKMNcCY1osiRVwjt3J8CuFWqo/ cVbLrzwLB+fxH5E2JCoTzyvV84J3PQO+K/67GD4Hv0CAAmTXp6a7n2XRxSpUhQ9IBH+nttE8 YQRAHmQZcmC3+wIDAQABo4GUMIGRMBIGA1UdEwEB/wQIMAYBAf8CAQAwQwYDVR0fBDwwOjA4 oDagNIYyaHR0cDovL2NybC50aGF3dGUuY29tL1RoYXd0ZVBlcnNvbmFsRnJlZW1haWxDQS5j cmwwCwYDVR0PBAQDAgEGMCkGA1UdEQQiMCCkHjAcMRowGAYDVQQDExFQcml2YXRlTGFiZWwy LTEzODANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOBgQBIjNFQg+oLLswNo2asZw9/r6y+whehQ5aUnX9MIbj4 Nh+qLZ82L8D0HFAgk3A8/a3hYWLD2ToZfoSxmRsAxRoLgnSeJVCUYsfbJ3FXJY3dqZw5jowg T2Vfldr394fWxghOrvbqNOUQGls1TXfjViF4gtwhGTXeJLHTHUb/XV9lTzGCA2QwggNgAgEB MHYwYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0 ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBAhA/WhrG FpDK/rOM5sjg4QfiMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggHDMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEw HAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTA4MDIyMDEwMDEwOFowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFCXMV6c8Q57x 3DhKTUfpt1a4N5rsMFIGCSqGSIb3DQEJDzFFMEMwCgYIKoZIhvcNAwcwDgYIKoZIhvcNAwIC AgCAMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgFAMAcGBSsOAwIHMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgEoMIGFBgkrBgEEAYI3 EAQxeDB2MGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUwIwYDVQQKExxUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZyAoUHR5 KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwgRnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBDQQIQ P1oaxhaQyv6zjObI4OEH4jCBhwYLKoZIhvcNAQkQAgsxeKB2MGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUw IwYDVQQKExxUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZyAoUHR5KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUg UGVyc29uYWwgRnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBDQQIQP1oaxhaQyv6zjObI4OEH4jANBgkqhkiG 9w0BAQEFAASCAQCzkdiIfkAeEWIYcx8eHPDHFQltVxzIyulDlMfjbT41gexChGUVVav4Xa94 /1m0iSI0Wn1c1W8CoPtaHkCztwqLYWDDQiKUdskPQptjzG4JIV8HbuSLA+h7B3RcpRQ64gPS 3YPp/4LJy7yC0rutzKqvai/ER0qWIs4covXEwf36OOlS3iyCtPSivb0HchwsP6JN5wZQkXpO TLEZHfkF61FJSBIIvf8lMiIglvtyxWdbmAhBAOoWc/xtuxdSPeLNGz2h5uH0kDmYAtisyeBP Iq/6oZjpTCDkaWNJJ3aRk7Y9LNNWFtbRKGYLDY6waTn/AeUTHTNL+/7EmEaYEA0WooJeAAAA AAAA --------------ms070203060504060106030805-- --===============1067706126== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix --===============1067706126==-- From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 20 05:58:38 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 364C53A6965; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 05:58:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.378 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.184, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=1, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LuRbGnipjZiR; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 05:58:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D965C3A69B9; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 05:58:36 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BCD13A6965 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 05:58:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HtayvsBSrD2X for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 05:58:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (odd-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.119]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7E943A6841 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 05:58:34 -0800 (PST) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id m1KDwTV08695; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:58:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.61.82.189] (ams3-vpn-dhcp4798.cisco.com [10.61.82.189]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id m1KDwSB17991; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:58:28 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47BC3202.6000705@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:58:26 +0100 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Windows/20070509) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gerhard Muenz References: <47B5A546.5090704@cisco.com> <47B99735.6050200@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> <47BB0D79.7030703@cisco.com> <47BBFA64.1080807@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> In-Reply-To: <47BBFA64.1080807@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> Cc: "ipfix@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [IPFIX] Per-SCTP stream draft: New Template ID SHOULD/MUST be used? X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1787009262==" Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1787009262== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080909050404040600090804" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080909050404040600090804 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gerhard, > Benoit, Paul, > > >> Solution 1 >> The template IDs are scoped per stream, next to the the Transport >> Session and Observation Domain that generated the Template ID. >> > > Do you mean to change the scope of Template IDs as specified in RFC5101? > In my opinion, we should not change the protocol specifications as long > as we can achieve the same result by a clever usage of the current > protocol. > > Changing the scope of Template IDs is necessary only if you want to use > the same Template ID on different streams. However, I assume that the > Template ID space is large enough (and much larger than the number of > available streams) to assign unique IDs per Transport Session. Then, if > a given Template ID is used, withdrawn, and reused exclusively on one > stream, we achieve the same result. > So basically you say: let's not scope the Template IDs per stream, but let's make sure that a Template ID is not used across multiple streams. > >> Next to that, the transmission order per stream is maintained >> > > Yes, that is a necessary condition. > > >> In this case, problem 1 and problem 2 will never happen >> The drawbacks are that >> - more template ID and records would be used. For example, the >> sampling option template record would require >> one template ID per stream and the export the "same" data record >> values per stream >> - "reducing redundancy" draft would not work across stream. Is this >> a big issue, I don't know! >> Note that there is a simple solution to address those two drawbacks: >> never send a template withdrawal message, and make those template IDs >> permanent as long as the SCTP association is up. Nothing is changed on >> the collector side specifications, as it doesn't have to know that the >> template IDs are permanent >> > > It is a trade-off because now, the collector has to store numerous > unused Templates until the end of the association. > It should be up to the administrator's preferences if he prefers not to > withdraw Templates because he wants to use reducing redundancy with the > same Template over multiple streams and pay for it with higher memory > requirements at the collector. > > >> Now, the real question in this solution 1 is: what to do if we can't >> increase anymore the number of streams in the SCTP association? >> >> We export all the newly created template IDs and the associated data >> records on the stream 0 (as currently specified in the per-SCTP stream) >> Overloading the stream 0 is not an issue as the SCTP design is such >> that there is one pool of buffer and all streams will share it, i.e. >> "if you send 100k in one stream.. or 100k spread over all streams.. >> it makes no difference" dixit Randy Stewart. >> Note: stream 0 is mentioned for historical but could very well be >> another one. I'm not even sure we even need to specify a certain stream >> Note that on that stream 0, we can't deduce the loss per template. >> > > The main advantage of using separate streams for different Templates is > that you can calculate the record loss per Template. This might not be > required for all Templates. So the administrator can chose for which > Templates he wants to have a separate stream. He can also group several > Templates in one stream if the loss rate for the whole group is > sufficient for the statistics. > I like this idea. > We also need to add that "All Template Withdrawal Message" is not used. > Yes. Regards, Benoit > Regards, > Gerhard > > --------------080909050404040600090804 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gerhard, 
Benoit, Paul,

  
Solution 1
The template IDs are scoped per stream, next to the the Transport
Session and Observation Domain that generated the Template ID.
    

Do you mean to change the scope of Template IDs as specified in RFC5101?
In my opinion, we should not change the protocol specifications as long
as we can achieve the same result by a clever usage of the current
protocol.

Changing the scope of Template IDs is necessary only if you want to use
the same Template ID on different streams. However, I assume that the
Template ID space is large enough (and much larger than the number of
available streams) to assign unique IDs per Transport Session. Then, if
a given Template ID is used, withdrawn, and reused exclusively on one
stream, we achieve the same result.
So basically you say: let's not scope the Template IDs per stream, but let's make sure that a Template ID is not used across multiple streams.
  
Next to that, the transmission order per stream is maintained
    

Yes, that is a necessary condition.

  
In this case, problem 1 and problem 2 will never happen
The drawbacks are that
    - more template ID and records would be used. For example, the
sampling option template record would require
      one template ID per stream and the export the "same" data record
values per stream
    - "reducing redundancy" draft would not work across stream. Is this
a big issue, I don't know!
Note that there is a simple solution to address those two drawbacks:
never send a template withdrawal message, and make those template IDs
permanent as long as the SCTP association is up. Nothing is changed on
the collector side specifications, as it doesn't have to know that the
template IDs are permanent
    

It is a trade-off because now, the collector has to store numerous
unused Templates until the end of the association.
It should be up to the administrator's preferences if he prefers not to
withdraw Templates because he wants to use reducing redundancy with the
same Template over multiple streams and pay for it with higher memory
requirements at the collector.

  
Now, the real question in this solution 1 is: what to do if we can't
increase anymore the number of streams in the SCTP association?

    We export all the newly created template IDs and the associated data
    records on the stream 0 (as currently specified in the per-SCTP stream)
    Overloading the stream 0 is not an issue as the SCTP design is such
    that there is one pool of buffer and all streams will share it, i.e.
    "if you send  100k in one stream.. or 100k spread over all streams..
    it makes no difference" dixit Randy Stewart.
    Note: stream 0 is mentioned for historical but could very well be
    another one. I'm not even sure we even need to specify a certain stream
    Note that on that stream 0, we can't deduce the loss per template.
    

The main advantage of using separate streams for different Templates is
that you can calculate the record loss per Template. This might not be
required for all Templates. So the administrator can chose for which
Templates he wants to have a separate stream. He can also group several
Templates in one stream if the loss rate for the whole group is
sufficient for the statistics.
I like this idea.

We also need to add that "All Template Withdrawal Message" is not used.
Yes.

Regards, Benoit
Regards,
Gerhard

--------------080909050404040600090804-- --===============1787009262== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix --===============1787009262==-- From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 20 05:58:38 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 364C53A6965; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 05:58:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.378 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.184, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=1, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LuRbGnipjZiR; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 05:58:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D965C3A69B9; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 05:58:36 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BCD13A6965 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 05:58:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HtayvsBSrD2X for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 05:58:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (odd-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.119]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7E943A6841 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 05:58:34 -0800 (PST) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id m1KDwTV08695; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:58:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.61.82.189] (ams3-vpn-dhcp4798.cisco.com [10.61.82.189]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id m1KDwSB17991; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:58:28 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47BC3202.6000705@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:58:26 +0100 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Windows/20070509) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gerhard Muenz References: <47B5A546.5090704@cisco.com> <47B99735.6050200@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> <47BB0D79.7030703@cisco.com> <47BBFA64.1080807@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> In-Reply-To: <47BBFA64.1080807@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> Cc: "ipfix@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [IPFIX] Per-SCTP stream draft: New Template ID SHOULD/MUST be used? X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1787009262==" Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1787009262== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080909050404040600090804" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080909050404040600090804 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gerhard, > Benoit, Paul, > > >> Solution 1 >> The template IDs are scoped per stream, next to the the Transport >> Session and Observation Domain that generated the Template ID. >> > > Do you mean to change the scope of Template IDs as specified in RFC5101? > In my opinion, we should not change the protocol specifications as long > as we can achieve the same result by a clever usage of the current > protocol. > > Changing the scope of Template IDs is necessary only if you want to use > the same Template ID on different streams. However, I assume that the > Template ID space is large enough (and much larger than the number of > available streams) to assign unique IDs per Transport Session. Then, if > a given Template ID is used, withdrawn, and reused exclusively on one > stream, we achieve the same result. > So basically you say: let's not scope the Template IDs per stream, but let's make sure that a Template ID is not used across multiple streams. > >> Next to that, the transmission order per stream is maintained >> > > Yes, that is a necessary condition. > > >> In this case, problem 1 and problem 2 will never happen >> The drawbacks are that >> - more template ID and records would be used. For example, the >> sampling option template record would require >> one template ID per stream and the export the "same" data record >> values per stream >> - "reducing redundancy" draft would not work across stream. Is this >> a big issue, I don't know! >> Note that there is a simple solution to address those two drawbacks: >> never send a template withdrawal message, and make those template IDs >> permanent as long as the SCTP association is up. Nothing is changed on >> the collector side specifications, as it doesn't have to know that the >> template IDs are permanent >> > > It is a trade-off because now, the collector has to store numerous > unused Templates until the end of the association. > It should be up to the administrator's preferences if he prefers not to > withdraw Templates because he wants to use reducing redundancy with the > same Template over multiple streams and pay for it with higher memory > requirements at the collector. > > >> Now, the real question in this solution 1 is: what to do if we can't >> increase anymore the number of streams in the SCTP association? >> >> We export all the newly created template IDs and the associated data >> records on the stream 0 (as currently specified in the per-SCTP stream) >> Overloading the stream 0 is not an issue as the SCTP design is such >> that there is one pool of buffer and all streams will share it, i.e. >> "if you send 100k in one stream.. or 100k spread over all streams.. >> it makes no difference" dixit Randy Stewart. >> Note: stream 0 is mentioned for historical but could very well be >> another one. I'm not even sure we even need to specify a certain stream >> Note that on that stream 0, we can't deduce the loss per template. >> > > The main advantage of using separate streams for different Templates is > that you can calculate the record loss per Template. This might not be > required for all Templates. So the administrator can chose for which > Templates he wants to have a separate stream. He can also group several > Templates in one stream if the loss rate for the whole group is > sufficient for the statistics. > I like this idea. > We also need to add that "All Template Withdrawal Message" is not used. > Yes. Regards, Benoit > Regards, > Gerhard > > --------------080909050404040600090804 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gerhard, 
Benoit, Paul,

  
Solution 1
The template IDs are scoped per stream, next to the the Transport
Session and Observation Domain that generated the Template ID.
    

Do you mean to change the scope of Template IDs as specified in RFC5101?
In my opinion, we should not change the protocol specifications as long
as we can achieve the same result by a clever usage of the current
protocol.

Changing the scope of Template IDs is necessary only if you want to use
the same Template ID on different streams. However, I assume that the
Template ID space is large enough (and much larger than the number of
available streams) to assign unique IDs per Transport Session. Then, if
a given Template ID is used, withdrawn, and reused exclusively on one
stream, we achieve the same result.
So basically you say: let's not scope the Template IDs per stream, but let's make sure that a Template ID is not used across multiple streams.
  
Next to that, the transmission order per stream is maintained
    

Yes, that is a necessary condition.

  
In this case, problem 1 and problem 2 will never happen
The drawbacks are that
    - more template ID and records would be used. For example, the
sampling option template record would require
      one template ID per stream and the export the "same" data record
values per stream
    - "reducing redundancy" draft would not work across stream. Is this
a big issue, I don't know!
Note that there is a simple solution to address those two drawbacks:
never send a template withdrawal message, and make those template IDs
permanent as long as the SCTP association is up. Nothing is changed on
the collector side specifications, as it doesn't have to know that the
template IDs are permanent
    

It is a trade-off because now, the collector has to store numerous
unused Templates until the end of the association.
It should be up to the administrator's preferences if he prefers not to
withdraw Templates because he wants to use reducing redundancy with the
same Template over multiple streams and pay for it with higher memory
requirements at the collector.

  
Now, the real question in this solution 1 is: what to do if we can't
increase anymore the number of streams in the SCTP association?

    We export all the newly created template IDs and the associated data
    records on the stream 0 (as currently specified in the per-SCTP stream)
    Overloading the stream 0 is not an issue as the SCTP design is such
    that there is one pool of buffer and all streams will share it, i.e.
    "if you send  100k in one stream.. or 100k spread over all streams..
    it makes no difference" dixit Randy Stewart.
    Note: stream 0 is mentioned for historical but could very well be
    another one. I'm not even sure we even need to specify a certain stream
    Note that on that stream 0, we can't deduce the loss per template.
    

The main advantage of using separate streams for different Templates is
that you can calculate the record loss per Template. This might not be
required for all Templates. So the administrator can chose for which
Templates he wants to have a separate stream. He can also group several
Templates in one stream if the loss rate for the whole group is
sufficient for the statistics.
I like this idea.

We also need to add that "All Template Withdrawal Message" is not used.
Yes.

Regards, Benoit
Regards,
Gerhard

--------------080909050404040600090804-- --===============1787009262== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix --===============1787009262==-- From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 20 12:34:21 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C400C28C80A; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:34:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.248 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.811, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hNGantS7-WB5; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:34:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF6F428C304; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:34:20 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2AAA3A6A00 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:34:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f-Mc-WMFyA0u for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:34:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (curly.its.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.12.33]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AACA93A687A for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:34:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 016E59C791; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:34:13 +1300 (NZDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mailhost.auckland.ac.nz Received: from mailhost.auckland.ac.nz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (curly.its.auckland.ac.nz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oAQRA4M1Z6sG; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:34:12 +1300 (NZDT) Received: from [130.216.38.130] (nevil-laptop.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.130]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id A85CA9C724; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:34:11 +1300 (NZDT) In-Reply-To: <47821BA5.7080306@cisco.com> References: <47821BA5.7080306@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) Message-Id: <4D8CEAB6-D641-4352-9D68-8652EA524B54@auckland.ac.nz> From: Nevil Brownlee Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:34:11 +1300 To: Thomas Dietz X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) Cc: IETF IPFIX Working Group Subject: Re: [IPFIX] WG last call on IPFIX MIB X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Hi all: WG last call for the IPFIX NIB draft (-01.txt) finished back in December, and there were several comments made. Seems to me we need a new revision to respond to those comments, then we can submit it to IESG for publication. Thomas, have I got that right, and can we expect a new revision sometime soon, please? Cheers, Nevil (IPFIX co-chair) --------------------------------------------------------------------- Nevil Brownlee Computer Science Department | ITS Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x88941 The University of Auckland FAX: +64 9 373 7453 Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 20 12:34:21 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C400C28C80A; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:34:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.248 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.811, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hNGantS7-WB5; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:34:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF6F428C304; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:34:20 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2AAA3A6A00 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:34:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f-Mc-WMFyA0u for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:34:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (curly.its.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.12.33]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AACA93A687A for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:34:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 016E59C791; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:34:13 +1300 (NZDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mailhost.auckland.ac.nz Received: from mailhost.auckland.ac.nz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (curly.its.auckland.ac.nz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oAQRA4M1Z6sG; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:34:12 +1300 (NZDT) Received: from [130.216.38.130] (nevil-laptop.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.130]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id A85CA9C724; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:34:11 +1300 (NZDT) In-Reply-To: <47821BA5.7080306@cisco.com> References: <47821BA5.7080306@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) Message-Id: <4D8CEAB6-D641-4352-9D68-8652EA524B54@auckland.ac.nz> From: Nevil Brownlee Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:34:11 +1300 To: Thomas Dietz X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) Cc: IETF IPFIX Working Group Subject: Re: [IPFIX] WG last call on IPFIX MIB X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Hi all: WG last call for the IPFIX NIB draft (-01.txt) finished back in December, and there were several comments made. Seems to me we need a new revision to respond to those comments, then we can submit it to IESG for publication. Thomas, have I got that right, and can we expect a new revision sometime soon, please? Cheers, Nevil (IPFIX co-chair) --------------------------------------------------------------------- Nevil Brownlee Computer Science Department | ITS Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x88941 The University of Auckland FAX: +64 9 373 7453 Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 20 13:27:21 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F83428C2EE; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:27:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.869 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.869 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.432, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mwjR2b2Cr6bV; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:27:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 686883A6B0C; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:27:20 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4D543A697E for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:27:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id edUd94j6ulXB for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:27:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (moe.its.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.12.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA42028C400 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:27:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E021480547 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:27:05 +1300 (NZDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mailhost.auckland.ac.nz Received: from mailhost.auckland.ac.nz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (moe.its.auckland.ac.nz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xyaLIVR3hvwP for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:27:05 +1300 (NZDT) Received: from [130.216.38.130] (nevil-laptop.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.130]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AEF34803AE for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:27:05 +1300 (NZDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) Message-Id: <1A25894D-90CA-449A-9221-2FBA99EB07F2@auckland.ac.nz> To: IETF IPFIX Working Group From: Nevil Brownlee Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:27:04 +1300 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) Subject: [IPFIX] DRAFT IPFIX agenda for IETF 71 in Philadelphia X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Hi all: I've put together a draft agenda for our meeting in Philadelphia, appended below. Please send me any suggestions/changes/improvements, so I can update the agenda. Cheers, Nevil --------------------------------------------------------------------- Nevil Brownlee Computer Science Department | ITS Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x88941 The University of Auckland FAX: +64 9 373 7453 Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand IETF #71, Philadelphia Tuesday, 11 March 08 at 1720-1950 >>> IETF 71 agenda is still in DRAFT, this time may change <<< ====================================================== Chairs: Nevil Brownlee Juergen Quittek AGENDA: 1. Agenda review WG Status = 5 min 2. Internet-Draft status = 9 min [Published: - RFC 5101 IPFIX Protocol - RFC 5102 IPFIX Information Model - RFC 5103 IPFIX Biflows In RFC Editor queue: - draft-ietf-ipfix-architecture-12.txt - draft-ietf-ipfix-as-12.txt - draft-ietf-ipfix-reducing-redundancy-04.txt - draft-ietf-ipfix-implementation-guidelines-08.txt In IETF Last Call: - draft-ietf-ipfix-testing-04.txt ] - draft-ietf-psamp-framework-12.txt [Nick Duffield] Jun 07 - draft-ietf-psamp-sample-tech-10.txt [Tanja Zseby] Jun 07 - draft-ietf-psamp-protocol-09.txt [Benoit Claise] Dec 07 - draft-ietf-psamp-info-07.txt [Thomas Dietz] Oct 07 3. Drafts from the old charter .. = 5 min a) IPFIX MIB (Thomas Dietz) - draft-dietz-ipfix-mib-02.txt Dec 07 4. New WG drafts =26 min Two new WG drafts, as agreed on the list after IETF 70: a) IPFIX File Format (Brian Trammell) ( 5 min) - draft-ietf-ipfix-file-00.txt b) Exporting Type Information for IPFIX IEs (Elisa Boschi) - draft-ietf-ipfix-exporting-type-00.txt ( 5 min) Two more drafts that need to accepted as WG items: [These need support/consensus, demonstrated by having 3 or more people who'll read and review them] a) Configuration Data Model ( 8 min) - draft-muenz-ipfix-configuration-03.txt b) IPFIX Per-Stream SCTP reporting (Benoit CLaise) ( 8 min) - draft-claise-ipfix-export-per-sctp-stream-02.txt 5. IPFIX Mediation =55 min a) IPFIX Mediation: Problem Statement (Kobayashi Atsushi) (15 min) - draft-kobayashi-ipfix-large-ps-00.txt "Problems with Flow Collection in Large-Scale Networks" b) IPFIX Mediation: Framework - draft-kobayashi-ipfix-mediator-model-01.txt (40 min) - draft-dressler-ipfix-aggregation-04.txt We need to decide how to proceed with the WG's 'Mediation Framework' draft 6. Other Drafts =15 min New IEs for the IPFIX Information Model (Paul Aitken) - draft-aitken-ipfix-new-infos-01.txt 7. Any Other Business = 5 min 8. Wrap up, milestone review =10 min --------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 20 13:27:21 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F83428C2EE; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:27:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.869 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.869 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.432, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mwjR2b2Cr6bV; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:27:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 686883A6B0C; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:27:20 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4D543A697E for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:27:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id edUd94j6ulXB for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:27:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (moe.its.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.12.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA42028C400 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:27:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E021480547 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:27:05 +1300 (NZDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mailhost.auckland.ac.nz Received: from mailhost.auckland.ac.nz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (moe.its.auckland.ac.nz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xyaLIVR3hvwP for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:27:05 +1300 (NZDT) Received: from [130.216.38.130] (nevil-laptop.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.130]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AEF34803AE for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:27:05 +1300 (NZDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) Message-Id: <1A25894D-90CA-449A-9221-2FBA99EB07F2@auckland.ac.nz> To: IETF IPFIX Working Group From: Nevil Brownlee Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:27:04 +1300 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) Subject: [IPFIX] DRAFT IPFIX agenda for IETF 71 in Philadelphia X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Hi all: I've put together a draft agenda for our meeting in Philadelphia, appended below. Please send me any suggestions/changes/improvements, so I can update the agenda. Cheers, Nevil --------------------------------------------------------------------- Nevil Brownlee Computer Science Department | ITS Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x88941 The University of Auckland FAX: +64 9 373 7453 Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand IETF #71, Philadelphia Tuesday, 11 March 08 at 1720-1950 >>> IETF 71 agenda is still in DRAFT, this time may change <<< ====================================================== Chairs: Nevil Brownlee Juergen Quittek AGENDA: 1. Agenda review WG Status = 5 min 2. Internet-Draft status = 9 min [Published: - RFC 5101 IPFIX Protocol - RFC 5102 IPFIX Information Model - RFC 5103 IPFIX Biflows In RFC Editor queue: - draft-ietf-ipfix-architecture-12.txt - draft-ietf-ipfix-as-12.txt - draft-ietf-ipfix-reducing-redundancy-04.txt - draft-ietf-ipfix-implementation-guidelines-08.txt In IETF Last Call: - draft-ietf-ipfix-testing-04.txt ] - draft-ietf-psamp-framework-12.txt [Nick Duffield] Jun 07 - draft-ietf-psamp-sample-tech-10.txt [Tanja Zseby] Jun 07 - draft-ietf-psamp-protocol-09.txt [Benoit Claise] Dec 07 - draft-ietf-psamp-info-07.txt [Thomas Dietz] Oct 07 3. Drafts from the old charter .. = 5 min a) IPFIX MIB (Thomas Dietz) - draft-dietz-ipfix-mib-02.txt Dec 07 4. New WG drafts =26 min Two new WG drafts, as agreed on the list after IETF 70: a) IPFIX File Format (Brian Trammell) ( 5 min) - draft-ietf-ipfix-file-00.txt b) Exporting Type Information for IPFIX IEs (Elisa Boschi) - draft-ietf-ipfix-exporting-type-00.txt ( 5 min) Two more drafts that need to accepted as WG items: [These need support/consensus, demonstrated by having 3 or more people who'll read and review them] a) Configuration Data Model ( 8 min) - draft-muenz-ipfix-configuration-03.txt b) IPFIX Per-Stream SCTP reporting (Benoit CLaise) ( 8 min) - draft-claise-ipfix-export-per-sctp-stream-02.txt 5. IPFIX Mediation =55 min a) IPFIX Mediation: Problem Statement (Kobayashi Atsushi) (15 min) - draft-kobayashi-ipfix-large-ps-00.txt "Problems with Flow Collection in Large-Scale Networks" b) IPFIX Mediation: Framework - draft-kobayashi-ipfix-mediator-model-01.txt (40 min) - draft-dressler-ipfix-aggregation-04.txt We need to decide how to proceed with the WG's 'Mediation Framework' draft 6. Other Drafts =15 min New IEs for the IPFIX Information Model (Paul Aitken) - draft-aitken-ipfix-new-infos-01.txt 7. Any Other Business = 5 min 8. Wrap up, milestone review =10 min --------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 21 09:59:55 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEAF028CA7A; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:59:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.707 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.707 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.270, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lV6pnWs0e7IA; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:59:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29F3528C803; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:59:54 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E78BD28C803 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:59:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pe68XEVrnBIr for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:59:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from beniaminus.red.cert.org (beniaminus.red.cert.org [192.88.209.10]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA44628C71E for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:59:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from beniaminus.red.cert.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by beniaminus.red.cert.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/2.24) with ESMTP id m1LHxfuL005802 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:59:41 -0500 Received: (from defang@localhost) by beniaminus.red.cert.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit/1.1) id m1LHwO6x005617 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:58:24 -0500 Received: from villemus.indigo.cert.org (villemus.indigo.cert.org [10.60.10.5]) by beniaminus.red.cert.org (envelope-sender ) (MIMEDefang) with ESMTP id m1LHwNfK005613; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:58:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from THALEIA.WV.CC.CMU.EDU (vpn-10-25-4-32.remote.cert.org [10.25.4.32]) by villemus.indigo.cert.org (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/2.69) with ESMTP id m1LHwN2l030295; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:58:23 -0500 Message-Id: <963EE26A-62CE-4CA8-BFF9-79412A33C176@cert.org> From: Brian Trammell To: Benoit Claise In-Reply-To: <47BB0D79.7030703@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:58:23 -0500 References: <47B5A546.5090704@cisco.com> <47B99735.6050200@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> <47BB0D79.7030703@cisco.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.919.2) Cc: "ipfix@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [IPFIX] Per-SCTP stream draft: New Template ID SHOULD/MUST be used? X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Benoit, Gerhard, and all, Replies inline; the most important one appears at the end, after Solution 1. Summary: we shouldn't change the protocol to redefine template scopes; it doesn't just break specific things but creates a new protocol; and, we should address dependent information sequencing at some point. On Feb 19, 2008, at 12:10 PM, Benoit Claise wrote: > Gerhard, > > You had a series of very good comments, which proves that we're > thinking along the same lines. > For the everybody's sake, let me take a step back and explain the > problems we try to solve by sending template per-SCTP stream. > This should answer some questions below, such as "What do you mean > by reducing the risk of losing Data Records?" > > Problem 1: > - when a template ID is used by multiple streams, and a template > withdrawal message is sent on one of the those streams, then the > other streams must allow enough time for the template withdrawal > message to reach the collector before they can reuse the template > ID, which is something they cannot know. > More importantly, the template withdrawal message cannot be sent on > the first stream until it knows that all the other streams have > transmitted their corresponding data records - which is also > impossible to know. > > It's true that RFC5101 specifies: > The Template Withdrawal Message MUST NOT be sent until sufficient > time has elapsed to allow the Collecting Process to receive and > process the last Data Record using this Template information. This > time MUST be configurable. A suitable default value is 5 seconds > after the last Data Record has been sent. > But it's not always possible to guarantee that 5 seconds is enough. > So we might lose data records. Indeed. Template withdrawals (like UDP) are dangerous, and in an ideal situation should not be used at all. They won't work reliably in the general-case, flexible multistream environment. But sometimes you'll get yourself into a situation where you need to withdraw templates, for whatever reason. So we give guidelines, as above, to minimize the damage should an exporter choose to use this feature. (Aside: if data record loss avoidance is a prime requirement, use TCP or single-stream reliable SCTP.) (Aside, aside: Can someone provide 1. the count of templates you're expecting to use within a single transport session and 2. example expected use cases for template withdrawals? In theory all this is broken, I agree, but I still can't really see situations where all these various template withdrawal problems will arise in the Real World (tm).) > More generic problem: > Problems 1 and 2 are different problems, but with the same cause: > the problems come from data records from the same template ID sent > across different streams. Typically, the PSAMP option template > record for sampling. More generically still, the problems come from dependencies between IPFIX messages sent without sequencing guarantees. See comment on Solution 3 below. > This is a current limitation/problem with IPFIX > We evaluated whether we can propose some improvements part of this > per-SCTP draft, even if the per-SCTP draft goal was to export one > template per stream to be able to deduce the data loss for each > template record. > > There are a couple of solutions, with the solution 1 being the > preferred one. Hence the reverse order. > > Solution 3: > As explained by Gehrard, look at the export time in the template > records, data records, and template withdrawal message. > - This implies a more complex collecting process implementation as > the old and new template records must kept to compare the time > Note: potentially more than two template records must be kept if > the definition of the template ID changes frequently > - This implies that we loose the real-time decode, as the collecting > process must wait for a certain time, just in case a delayed > template withdrawal message and a new template record is received. > For this reason only, I think this solution is poor > - What if data record and template withdraw message were in the same > IPFIX message? Probably it'd depend on the order within the message. The CP should be looking at export time when evaluating information dependencies (scoped options, templates), anyway. This is completely ignored by the protocol (though in retrospect perhaps it should have been), but there are really only two temporal scoping policies that make sense: 1. If dependencies cannot be withdrawn, then it can be held to be valid for the entirety of its enclosing outer scope (the transport session). In this case, ordering within the session is completely unimportant. This is pretty much, by default, how 5101 treats things, and I think how we think about these things on the list. 2. If dependencies may we withdrawn _AND REDEFINED_ (which is the point of template withdrawals, after all), then the ordering of these operations is critically important. Since ordering is important _across_ streams, we can't use the sequence number. The only sync signal we have that works across all streams is the export time. Actually building out a consistent set of rules for handling dependent information could, I think, be done without changing the wire protocol or the EP at all; it could basically be a set of CP guidelines. Though I haven't thought all the way through the problem to be able to say that with much confidence, yet. IIRC Andrew and I discussed something along these lines in the form of a "scope user's guide" way back in San Diego, but haven't had a chance to do anything with it since then. > Solution 2 > We could propose a series of specifications that would reduce the > likelihood that problem 1 or 2 would happen > - transmission order is maintained within a stream > - redefinition of the Template ID is not encouraged > - template withdrawal message SHOULD be sent in the last used > stream that carried the template ID to be removed > - etc.. > The drawback of this solution is that, even if the likelihood is > reduced, there is no guarantee that the problem 1 and 2 will not > happen. > When I posted the initial email from this thread, I was still > thinking along this solution 2 Something along the lines of this solution is, I think, as good as we can do, in view of the issues with solution 1; see below. An EP using the per-stream technique will not lose data records due to template withdrawals or template synchronization issues. This is an advantage of using per-stream. But per-stream is an option; a technique applicable to certain use cases that has specific advantages in those cases. It uses each template only on a single stream, and each stream has only a single template, but that is simply the EP's prerogative, not a property of the protocol. An EP not using template withdrawals at all will not lose data records due to template withdrawals, trivially. An EP choosing to use template withdrawals and cross-stream template definitions may generate a message stream it is difficult but not impossible for the CP to process without record loss. 5101 provides guidelines and warnings to this effect already. (Again, data loss avoidance is _one_ requirement -- one policy -- that the mechanisms of the IPFIX protocol can be used to implement. It is not always of the utmost importance; otherwise we wouldn't support UDP and PR-SCTP.) > Solution 1 > The template IDs are scoped per stream, next to the the Transport > Session and Observation Domain that generated the Template ID. > Next to that, the transmission order per stream is maintained > In this case, problem 1 and problem 2 will never happen > The drawbacks are that > - more template ID and records would be used. For example, the > sampling option template record would require > one template ID per stream and the export the "same" data > record values per stream > - "reducing redundancy" draft would not work across stream. Is > this a big issue, I don't know! Indeed, this would cause options template records used for other than MP/EP metadata export (as in RFC5103, ipfix-exporting-type, ipfix- reducing-redundancy) not to work across streams. I agree with Gerhard (in his reply to this message): we shouldn't change the protocol. And this proposal does define a new protocol. RFC 5103 EPs would be incapable of interoperating with CPs that failed to interpret cross-stream templates. 5103 CPs would be incapable of interoperating with EPs that caused template collision. I would also repeat strenuously my warnings from the last time we visited this proposal (around the Chicago meeting last year) not to introduce restrictions or changes into the protocol that apply only to certain use cases and policies implementable with the greater protocol. > Note that there is a simple solution to address those two drawbacks: > never send a template withdrawal message, and make those template > IDs permanent as long as the SCTP association is up. Nothing is > changed on the collector side specifications, as it doesn't have to > know that the template IDs are permanent > > Now, the real question in this solution 1 is: what to do if we can't > increase anymore the number of streams in the SCTP association? > We export all the newly created template IDs and the associated data > records on the stream 0 (as currently specified in the per-SCTP > stream) > Overloading the stream 0 is not an issue as the SCTP design is such > that there is one pool of buffer and all streams will share it, i.e. > "if you send 100k in one stream.. or 100k spread over all streams.. > it makes no difference" dixit Randy Stewart. > Note: stream 0 is mentioned for historical but could very well be > another one. I'm not even sure we even need to specify a certain > stream > Note that on that stream 0, we can't deduce the loss per template. Hmm. per-stream should also provide guidelines that it works best in cases where you have enough streams to handle all your templates. Cheers, Brian _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 21 09:59:55 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEAF028CA7A; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:59:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.707 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.707 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.270, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lV6pnWs0e7IA; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:59:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29F3528C803; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:59:54 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E78BD28C803 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:59:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pe68XEVrnBIr for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:59:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from beniaminus.red.cert.org (beniaminus.red.cert.org [192.88.209.10]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA44628C71E for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:59:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from beniaminus.red.cert.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by beniaminus.red.cert.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/2.24) with ESMTP id m1LHxfuL005802 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:59:41 -0500 Received: (from defang@localhost) by beniaminus.red.cert.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit/1.1) id m1LHwO6x005617 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:58:24 -0500 Received: from villemus.indigo.cert.org (villemus.indigo.cert.org [10.60.10.5]) by beniaminus.red.cert.org (envelope-sender ) (MIMEDefang) with ESMTP id m1LHwNfK005613; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:58:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from THALEIA.WV.CC.CMU.EDU (vpn-10-25-4-32.remote.cert.org [10.25.4.32]) by villemus.indigo.cert.org (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/2.69) with ESMTP id m1LHwN2l030295; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:58:23 -0500 Message-Id: <963EE26A-62CE-4CA8-BFF9-79412A33C176@cert.org> From: Brian Trammell To: Benoit Claise In-Reply-To: <47BB0D79.7030703@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:58:23 -0500 References: <47B5A546.5090704@cisco.com> <47B99735.6050200@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> <47BB0D79.7030703@cisco.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.919.2) Cc: "ipfix@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [IPFIX] Per-SCTP stream draft: New Template ID SHOULD/MUST be used? X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Benoit, Gerhard, and all, Replies inline; the most important one appears at the end, after Solution 1. Summary: we shouldn't change the protocol to redefine template scopes; it doesn't just break specific things but creates a new protocol; and, we should address dependent information sequencing at some point. On Feb 19, 2008, at 12:10 PM, Benoit Claise wrote: > Gerhard, > > You had a series of very good comments, which proves that we're > thinking along the same lines. > For the everybody's sake, let me take a step back and explain the > problems we try to solve by sending template per-SCTP stream. > This should answer some questions below, such as "What do you mean > by reducing the risk of losing Data Records?" > > Problem 1: > - when a template ID is used by multiple streams, and a template > withdrawal message is sent on one of the those streams, then the > other streams must allow enough time for the template withdrawal > message to reach the collector before they can reuse the template > ID, which is something they cannot know. > More importantly, the template withdrawal message cannot be sent on > the first stream until it knows that all the other streams have > transmitted their corresponding data records - which is also > impossible to know. > > It's true that RFC5101 specifies: > The Template Withdrawal Message MUST NOT be sent until sufficient > time has elapsed to allow the Collecting Process to receive and > process the last Data Record using this Template information. This > time MUST be configurable. A suitable default value is 5 seconds > after the last Data Record has been sent. > But it's not always possible to guarantee that 5 seconds is enough. > So we might lose data records. Indeed. Template withdrawals (like UDP) are dangerous, and in an ideal situation should not be used at all. They won't work reliably in the general-case, flexible multistream environment. But sometimes you'll get yourself into a situation where you need to withdraw templates, for whatever reason. So we give guidelines, as above, to minimize the damage should an exporter choose to use this feature. (Aside: if data record loss avoidance is a prime requirement, use TCP or single-stream reliable SCTP.) (Aside, aside: Can someone provide 1. the count of templates you're expecting to use within a single transport session and 2. example expected use cases for template withdrawals? In theory all this is broken, I agree, but I still can't really see situations where all these various template withdrawal problems will arise in the Real World (tm).) > More generic problem: > Problems 1 and 2 are different problems, but with the same cause: > the problems come from data records from the same template ID sent > across different streams. Typically, the PSAMP option template > record for sampling. More generically still, the problems come from dependencies between IPFIX messages sent without sequencing guarantees. See comment on Solution 3 below. > This is a current limitation/problem with IPFIX > We evaluated whether we can propose some improvements part of this > per-SCTP draft, even if the per-SCTP draft goal was to export one > template per stream to be able to deduce the data loss for each > template record. > > There are a couple of solutions, with the solution 1 being the > preferred one. Hence the reverse order. > > Solution 3: > As explained by Gehrard, look at the export time in the template > records, data records, and template withdrawal message. > - This implies a more complex collecting process implementation as > the old and new template records must kept to compare the time > Note: potentially more than two template records must be kept if > the definition of the template ID changes frequently > - This implies that we loose the real-time decode, as the collecting > process must wait for a certain time, just in case a delayed > template withdrawal message and a new template record is received. > For this reason only, I think this solution is poor > - What if data record and template withdraw message were in the same > IPFIX message? Probably it'd depend on the order within the message. The CP should be looking at export time when evaluating information dependencies (scoped options, templates), anyway. This is completely ignored by the protocol (though in retrospect perhaps it should have been), but there are really only two temporal scoping policies that make sense: 1. If dependencies cannot be withdrawn, then it can be held to be valid for the entirety of its enclosing outer scope (the transport session). In this case, ordering within the session is completely unimportant. This is pretty much, by default, how 5101 treats things, and I think how we think about these things on the list. 2. If dependencies may we withdrawn _AND REDEFINED_ (which is the point of template withdrawals, after all), then the ordering of these operations is critically important. Since ordering is important _across_ streams, we can't use the sequence number. The only sync signal we have that works across all streams is the export time. Actually building out a consistent set of rules for handling dependent information could, I think, be done without changing the wire protocol or the EP at all; it could basically be a set of CP guidelines. Though I haven't thought all the way through the problem to be able to say that with much confidence, yet. IIRC Andrew and I discussed something along these lines in the form of a "scope user's guide" way back in San Diego, but haven't had a chance to do anything with it since then. > Solution 2 > We could propose a series of specifications that would reduce the > likelihood that problem 1 or 2 would happen > - transmission order is maintained within a stream > - redefinition of the Template ID is not encouraged > - template withdrawal message SHOULD be sent in the last used > stream that carried the template ID to be removed > - etc.. > The drawback of this solution is that, even if the likelihood is > reduced, there is no guarantee that the problem 1 and 2 will not > happen. > When I posted the initial email from this thread, I was still > thinking along this solution 2 Something along the lines of this solution is, I think, as good as we can do, in view of the issues with solution 1; see below. An EP using the per-stream technique will not lose data records due to template withdrawals or template synchronization issues. This is an advantage of using per-stream. But per-stream is an option; a technique applicable to certain use cases that has specific advantages in those cases. It uses each template only on a single stream, and each stream has only a single template, but that is simply the EP's prerogative, not a property of the protocol. An EP not using template withdrawals at all will not lose data records due to template withdrawals, trivially. An EP choosing to use template withdrawals and cross-stream template definitions may generate a message stream it is difficult but not impossible for the CP to process without record loss. 5101 provides guidelines and warnings to this effect already. (Again, data loss avoidance is _one_ requirement -- one policy -- that the mechanisms of the IPFIX protocol can be used to implement. It is not always of the utmost importance; otherwise we wouldn't support UDP and PR-SCTP.) > Solution 1 > The template IDs are scoped per stream, next to the the Transport > Session and Observation Domain that generated the Template ID. > Next to that, the transmission order per stream is maintained > In this case, problem 1 and problem 2 will never happen > The drawbacks are that > - more template ID and records would be used. For example, the > sampling option template record would require > one template ID per stream and the export the "same" data > record values per stream > - "reducing redundancy" draft would not work across stream. Is > this a big issue, I don't know! Indeed, this would cause options template records used for other than MP/EP metadata export (as in RFC5103, ipfix-exporting-type, ipfix- reducing-redundancy) not to work across streams. I agree with Gerhard (in his reply to this message): we shouldn't change the protocol. And this proposal does define a new protocol. RFC 5103 EPs would be incapable of interoperating with CPs that failed to interpret cross-stream templates. 5103 CPs would be incapable of interoperating with EPs that caused template collision. I would also repeat strenuously my warnings from the last time we visited this proposal (around the Chicago meeting last year) not to introduce restrictions or changes into the protocol that apply only to certain use cases and policies implementable with the greater protocol. > Note that there is a simple solution to address those two drawbacks: > never send a template withdrawal message, and make those template > IDs permanent as long as the SCTP association is up. Nothing is > changed on the collector side specifications, as it doesn't have to > know that the template IDs are permanent > > Now, the real question in this solution 1 is: what to do if we can't > increase anymore the number of streams in the SCTP association? > We export all the newly created template IDs and the associated data > records on the stream 0 (as currently specified in the per-SCTP > stream) > Overloading the stream 0 is not an issue as the SCTP design is such > that there is one pool of buffer and all streams will share it, i.e. > "if you send 100k in one stream.. or 100k spread over all streams.. > it makes no difference" dixit Randy Stewart. > Note: stream 0 is mentioned for historical but could very well be > another one. I'm not even sure we even need to specify a certain > stream > Note that on that stream 0, we can't deduce the loss per template. Hmm. per-stream should also provide guidelines that it works best in cases where you have enough streams to handle all your templates. Cheers, Brian _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 21 13:30:08 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D94C28CB57; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:30:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VThRzwwc2Cqb; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:30:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC79328CAD9; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:30:05 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@ietf.org Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 8DE6F28C72F; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:30:01 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Message-Id: <20080221213001.8DE6F28C72F@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:30:01 -0800 (PST) Cc: ipfix@ietf.org Subject: [IPFIX] I-D Action:draft-ietf-ipfix-file-01.txt X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Flow Information Export Working Group of the IETF. Title : An IPFIX-Based File Format Author(s) : B. Trammell, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ipfix-file-01.txt Pages : 49 Date : 2008-02-21 This document describes a file format for the storage of flow data based upon the IPFIX Message format. It proposes a set of requirements for flat-file, binary flow data file formats, then applies the IPFIX message format to these requirements to build a new file format. This IPFIX-based file format is designed to facilitate interoperability and reusability among a wide variety of flow storage, processing, and analysis tools. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-file-01.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ipfix-file-01.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-file-01.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-02-21132545.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-file-01.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ipfix-file-01.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-02-21132545.I-D\@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix --NextPart-- From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 21 13:30:08 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D94C28CB57; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:30:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VThRzwwc2Cqb; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:30:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC79328CAD9; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:30:05 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@ietf.org Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 8DE6F28C72F; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:30:01 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Message-Id: <20080221213001.8DE6F28C72F@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:30:01 -0800 (PST) Cc: ipfix@ietf.org Subject: [IPFIX] I-D Action:draft-ietf-ipfix-file-01.txt X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Flow Information Export Working Group of the IETF. Title : An IPFIX-Based File Format Author(s) : B. Trammell, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ipfix-file-01.txt Pages : 49 Date : 2008-02-21 This document describes a file format for the storage of flow data based upon the IPFIX Message format. It proposes a set of requirements for flat-file, binary flow data file formats, then applies the IPFIX message format to these requirements to build a new file format. This IPFIX-based file format is designed to facilitate interoperability and reusability among a wide variety of flow storage, processing, and analysis tools. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-file-01.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ipfix-file-01.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-file-01.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-02-21132545.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-file-01.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ipfix-file-01.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-02-21132545.I-D\@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix --NextPart-- From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 21 16:29:41 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB2C83A6B5D; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:29:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.540, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Mg005cC7-DqL; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:29:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E08693A6B2F; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:29:39 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E91D3A6B34 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:29:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g-+48HRCfB70 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:29:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E1093A6ABE for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:29:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from ams-dkim-2.cisco.com ([144.254.224.139]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Feb 2008 01:29:32 +0100 Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150]) by ams-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m1M0TW5K013369; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 01:29:32 +0100 Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.71.48]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m1M0TWXL006640; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:29:32 GMT Received: from [10.61.66.14] (ams3-vpn-dhcp526.cisco.com [10.61.66.14]) by cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id m1M0TVi17562; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:29:31 GMT Message-ID: <47BE17CF.1060703@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:31:11 +0000 From: Paul Aitken User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-GB; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080201 SeaMonkey/1.1.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Trammell References: <47B5A546.5090704@cisco.com> <47B99735.6050200@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> <47BB0D79.7030703@cisco.com> <963EE26A-62CE-4CA8-BFF9-79412A33C176@cert.org> In-Reply-To: <963EE26A-62CE-4CA8-BFF9-79412A33C176@cert.org> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=923; t=1203640172; x=1204504172; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=paitken@cisco.com; z=From:=20Paul=20Aitken=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[Sender=3A=20=20ipfix-bounces@ietf.org] =20=20Re=3A=20[IPFIX]=20Per-SCTP=20stream=0A=20draft=3A=20Ne w=20Template=20ID=20SHOULD/MUST=20be=20=09used? |Sender:=20; bh=yZxJLH5YmtsVPYZ1o7zlSUfhyOh/rwqQemswyizOrKQ=; b=t13TeiVO6++CVJXSe+VqXd0l/pCcna4aNo7W6ZsgCAoNqhoT9LXmGIDd0V AJZj3wrfotStLt6zklefYcC9WtUd1p0oN05R6+lJfuOZjjNHHDAVMpit+srE bPHxyfGein; Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-2; header.From=paitken@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim2001 verified; ); Cc: "ipfix@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [IPFIX] [Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org] Re: Per-SCTP stream draft: New Template ID SHOULD/MUST be used? X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Brian, > The CP should be looking at export time when evaluating information > dependencies (scoped options, templates), anyway. This is completely > ignored by the protocol If you do that, then you'd have to store all the received data records undecoded for a certain amount of time - even if you have a valid template to decode them - against the slight possibility of a TWM and new template definition with an earlier timestamp being received from another stream. Which means you lose the ability to decode data in real time. > IIRC Andrew and I discussed something along these lines in the form > of a "scope user's guide" way back in San Diego If templates contained a valid-from and a valid-to timestamp, with a guarantee they'd not be withdrawn or redefined within that window, then you could decode in real time once again. -- Paul Aitken Cisco Systems Ltd, Edinburgh, Scotland. _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 21 16:29:41 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB2C83A6B5D; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:29:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.540, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Mg005cC7-DqL; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:29:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E08693A6B2F; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:29:39 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E91D3A6B34 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:29:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g-+48HRCfB70 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:29:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E1093A6ABE for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:29:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from ams-dkim-2.cisco.com ([144.254.224.139]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Feb 2008 01:29:32 +0100 Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150]) by ams-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m1M0TW5K013369; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 01:29:32 +0100 Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.71.48]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m1M0TWXL006640; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:29:32 GMT Received: from [10.61.66.14] (ams3-vpn-dhcp526.cisco.com [10.61.66.14]) by cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id m1M0TVi17562; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:29:31 GMT Message-ID: <47BE17CF.1060703@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:31:11 +0000 From: Paul Aitken User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-GB; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080201 SeaMonkey/1.1.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Trammell References: <47B5A546.5090704@cisco.com> <47B99735.6050200@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> <47BB0D79.7030703@cisco.com> <963EE26A-62CE-4CA8-BFF9-79412A33C176@cert.org> In-Reply-To: <963EE26A-62CE-4CA8-BFF9-79412A33C176@cert.org> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=923; t=1203640172; x=1204504172; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=paitken@cisco.com; z=From:=20Paul=20Aitken=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[Sender=3A=20=20ipfix-bounces@ietf.org] =20=20Re=3A=20[IPFIX]=20Per-SCTP=20stream=0A=20draft=3A=20Ne w=20Template=20ID=20SHOULD/MUST=20be=20=09used? |Sender:=20; bh=yZxJLH5YmtsVPYZ1o7zlSUfhyOh/rwqQemswyizOrKQ=; b=t13TeiVO6++CVJXSe+VqXd0l/pCcna4aNo7W6ZsgCAoNqhoT9LXmGIDd0V AJZj3wrfotStLt6zklefYcC9WtUd1p0oN05R6+lJfuOZjjNHHDAVMpit+srE bPHxyfGein; Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-2; header.From=paitken@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim2001 verified; ); Cc: "ipfix@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [IPFIX] [Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org] Re: Per-SCTP stream draft: New Template ID SHOULD/MUST be used? X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Brian, > The CP should be looking at export time when evaluating information > dependencies (scoped options, templates), anyway. This is completely > ignored by the protocol If you do that, then you'd have to store all the received data records undecoded for a certain amount of time - even if you have a valid template to decode them - against the slight possibility of a TWM and new template definition with an earlier timestamp being received from another stream. Which means you lose the ability to decode data in real time. > IIRC Andrew and I discussed something along these lines in the form > of a "scope user's guide" way back in San Diego If templates contained a valid-from and a valid-to timestamp, with a guarantee they'd not be withdrawn or redefined within that window, then you could decode in real time once again. -- Paul Aitken Cisco Systems Ltd, Edinburgh, Scotland. _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Fri Feb 22 02:15:07 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10DA328C9BC; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 02:15:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.578 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bx9mxNY8dy1J; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 02:15:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E054B3A6C91; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 02:15:03 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@ietf.org Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 71C353A6BCD; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 02:15:01 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Message-Id: <20080222101501.71C353A6BCD@core3.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 02:15:01 -0800 (PST) Cc: ipfix@ietf.org Subject: [IPFIX] I-D Action:draft-ietf-ipfix-mib-03.txt X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Flow Information Export Working Group of the IETF. Title : Definitions of Managed Objects for IP Flow Information Export Author(s) : T. Dietz, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ipfix-mib-03.txt Pages : 49 Date : 2008-02-22 This document defines managed objects for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX). These objects provide information for monitoring IPFIX Exporters and IPFIX Collectors including the basic configuration information. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-mib-03.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ipfix-mib-03.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-mib-03.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-02-22021309.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-mib-03.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ipfix-mib-03.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-02-22021309.I-D\@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix --NextPart-- From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Fri Feb 22 02:15:07 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10DA328C9BC; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 02:15:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.578 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bx9mxNY8dy1J; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 02:15:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E054B3A6C91; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 02:15:03 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@ietf.org Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 71C353A6BCD; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 02:15:01 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Message-Id: <20080222101501.71C353A6BCD@core3.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 02:15:01 -0800 (PST) Cc: ipfix@ietf.org Subject: [IPFIX] I-D Action:draft-ietf-ipfix-mib-03.txt X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Flow Information Export Working Group of the IETF. Title : Definitions of Managed Objects for IP Flow Information Export Author(s) : T. Dietz, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ipfix-mib-03.txt Pages : 49 Date : 2008-02-22 This document defines managed objects for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX). These objects provide information for monitoring IPFIX Exporters and IPFIX Collectors including the basic configuration information. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-mib-03.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ipfix-mib-03.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-mib-03.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-02-22021309.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-mib-03.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ipfix-mib-03.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-02-22021309.I-D\@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix --NextPart-- From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Fri Feb 22 05:16:51 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 956563A6C60; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 05:16:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.132 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.132 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.305, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tA4FOBT+Rwg9; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 05:16:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DADD28C1D4; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 05:16:50 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4270D3A6885 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 05:16:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qcybrzf4-lHp for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 05:16:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (odd-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.119]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67A083A690C for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 05:16:47 -0800 (PST) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id m1MDGeU27574; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:16:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.61.82.57] (ams3-vpn-dhcp4666.cisco.com [10.61.82.57]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id m1MDGdB04935; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:16:39 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47BECB37.2070109@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:16:39 +0100 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Windows/20070509) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Trammell References: <47B5A546.5090704@cisco.com> <47B99735.6050200@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> <47BB0D79.7030703@cisco.com> <963EE26A-62CE-4CA8-BFF9-79412A33C176@cert.org> In-Reply-To: <963EE26A-62CE-4CA8-BFF9-79412A33C176@cert.org> Cc: "ipfix@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [IPFIX] Per-SCTP stream draft: New Template ID SHOULD/MUST be used? X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Thanks Brian, Let me quickly update the draft based on Gerhard's and your feedback. Regards, Benoit. > Benoit, Gerhard, and all, > > Replies inline; the most important one appears at the end, after > Solution 1. Summary: we shouldn't change the protocol to redefine > template scopes; it doesn't just break specific things but creates a > new protocol; and, we should address dependent information sequencing > at some point. > > On Feb 19, 2008, at 12:10 PM, Benoit Claise wrote: > >> Gerhard, >> >> You had a series of very good comments, which proves that we're >> thinking along the same lines. >> For the everybody's sake, let me take a step back and explain the >> problems we try to solve by sending template per-SCTP stream. >> This should answer some questions below, such as "What do you mean by >> reducing the risk of losing Data Records?" >> >> Problem 1: >> - when a From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Fri Feb 22 05:16:51 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 956563A6C60; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 05:16:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.132 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.132 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.305, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tA4FOBT+Rwg9; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 05:16:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DADD28C1D4; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 05:16:50 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4270D3A6885 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 05:16:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qcybrzf4-lHp for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 05:16:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (odd-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.119]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67A083A690C for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 05:16:47 -0800 (PST) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id m1MDGeU27574; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:16:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.61.82.57] (ams3-vpn-dhcp4666.cisco.com [10.61.82.57]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id m1MDGdB04935; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:16:39 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47BECB37.2070109@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:16:39 +0100 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Windows/20070509) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Trammell References: <47B5A546.5090704@cisco.com> <47B99735.6050200@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> <47BB0D79.7030703@cisco.com> <963EE26A-62CE-4CA8-BFF9-79412A33C176@cert.org> In-Reply-To: <963EE26A-62CE-4CA8-BFF9-79412A33C176@cert.org> Cc: "ipfix@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [IPFIX] Per-SCTP stream draft: New Template ID SHOULD/MUST be used? X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Thanks Brian, Let me quickly update the draft based on Gerhard's and your feedback. Regards, Benoit. > Benoit, Gerhard, and all, > > Replies inline; the most important one appears at the end, after > Solution 1. Summary: we shouldn't change the protocol to redefine > template scopes; it doesn't just break specific things but creates a > new protocol; and, we should address dependent information sequencing > at some point. > > On Feb 19, 2008, at 12:10 PM, Benoit Claise wrote: > >> Gerhard, >> >> You had a series of very good comments, which proves that we're >> thinking along the same lines. >> For the everybody's sake, let me take a step back and explain the >> problems we try to solve by sending template per-SCTP stream. >> This should answer some questions below, such as "What do you mean by >> reducing the risk of losing Data Records?" >> >> Problem 1: >> - when a template ID is used by multiple streams, and a template >> withdrawal message is sent on one of the those streams, then the >> other streams must allow enough time for the template withdrawal >> message to reach the collector before they can reuse the template ID, >> which is something they cannot know. >> More importantly, the template withdrawal message cannot be sent on >> the first stream until it knows that all the other streams have >> transmitted their corresponding data records - which is also >> impossible to know. >> >> It's true that RFC5101 specifies: >> The Template Withdrawal Message MUST NOT be sent until sufficient >> time has elapsed to allow the Collecting Process to receive and >> process the last Data Record using this Template information. This >> time MUST be configurable. A suitable default value is 5 seconds >> after the last Data Record has been sent. >> But it's not always possible to guarantee that 5 seconds is enough. >> So we might lose data records. > > Indeed. Template withdrawals (like UDP) are dangerous, and in an ideal > situation should not be used at all. They won't work reliably in the > general-case, flexible multistream environment. But sometimes you'll > get yourself into a situation where you need to withdraw templates, > for whatever reason. So we give guidelines, as above, to minimize the > damage should an exporter choose to use this feature. > > (Aside: if data record loss avoidance is a prime requirement, use TCP > or single-stream reliable SCTP.) > > (Aside, aside: Can someone provide 1. the count of templates you're > expecting to use within a single transport session and 2. example > expected use cases for template withdrawals? In theory all this is > broken, I agree, but I still can't really see situations where all > these various template withdrawal problems will arise in the Real > World (tm).) > >> More generic problem: >> Problems 1 and 2 are different problems, but with the same cause: the >> problems come from data records from the same template ID sent across >> different streams. Typically, the PSAMP option template record for >> sampling. > > More generically still, the problems come from dependencies between > IPFIX messages sent without sequencing guarantees. See comment on > Solution 3 below. > >> This is a current limitation/problem with IPFIX >> We evaluated whether we can propose some improvements part of this >> per-SCTP draft, even if the per-SCTP draft goal was to export one >> template per stream to be able to deduce the data loss for each >> template record. >> >> There are a couple of solutions, with the solution 1 being the >> preferred one. Hence the reverse order. >> >> Solution 3: >> As explained by Gehrard, look at the export time in the template >> records, data records, and template withdrawal message. >> - This implies a more complex collecting process implementation as >> the old and new template records must kept to compare the time >> Note: potentially more than two template records must be kept if >> the definition of the template ID changes frequently >> - This implies that we loose the real-time decode, as the collecting >> process must wait for a certain time, just in case a delayed template >> withdrawal message and a new template record is received. For this >> reason only, I think this solution is poor >> - What if data record and template withdraw message were in the same >> IPFIX message? Probably it'd depend on the order within the message. > > The CP should be looking at export time when evaluating information > dependencies (scoped options, templates), anyway. This is completely > ignored by the protocol (though in retrospect perhaps it should have > been), but there are really only two temporal scoping policies that > make sense: > > 1. If dependencies cannot be withdrawn, then it can be held to be > valid for the entirety of its enclosing outer scope (the transport > session). In this case, ordering within the session is completely > unimportant. This is pretty muchtemplate ID is used by multiple streams, and a template >> withdrawal message is sent on one of the those streams, then the >> other streams must allow enough time for the template withdrawal >> message to reach the collector before they can reuse the template ID, >> which is something they cannot know. >> More importantly, the template withdrawal message cannot be sent on >> the first stream until it knows that all the other streams have >> transmitted their corresponding data records - which is also >> impossible to know. >> >> It's true that RFC5101 specifies: >> The Template Withdrawal Message MUST NOT be sent until sufficient >> time has elapsed to allow the Collecting Process to receive and >> process the last Data Record using this Template information. This >> time MUST be configurable. A suitable default value is 5 seconds >> after the last Data Record has been sent. >> But it's not always possible to guarantee that 5 seconds is enough. >> So we might lose data records. > > Indeed. Template withdrawals (like UDP) are dangerous, and in an ideal > situation should not be used at all. They won't work reliably in the > general-case, flexible multistream environment. But sometimes you'll > get yourself into a situation where you need to withdraw templates, > for whatever reason. So we give guidelines, as above, to minimize the > damage should an exporter choose to use this feature. > > (Aside: if data record loss avoidance is a prime requirement, use TCP > or single-stream reliable SCTP.) > > (Aside, aside: Can someone provide 1. the count of templates you're > expecting to use within a single transport session and 2. example > expected use cases for template withdrawals? In theory all this is > broken, I agree, but I still can't really see situations where all > these various template withdrawal problems will arise in the Real > World (tm).) > >> More generic problem: >> Problems 1 and 2 are different problems, but with the same cause: the >> problems come from data records from the same template ID sent across >> different streams. Typically, the PSAMP option template record for >> sampling. > > More generically still, the problems come from dependencies between > IPFIX messages sent without sequencing guarantees. See comment on > Solution 3 below. > >> This is a current limitation/problem with IPFIX >> We evaluated whether we can propose some improvements part of this >> per-SCTP draft, even if the per-SCTP draft goal was to export one >> template per stream to be able to deduce the data loss for each >> template record. >> >> There are a couple of solutions, with the solution 1 being the >> preferred one. Hence the reverse order. >> >> Solution 3: >> As explained by Gehrard, look at the export time in the template >> records, data records, and template withdrawal message. >> - This implies a more complex collecting process implementation as >> the old and new template records must kept to compare the time >> Note: potentially more than two template records must be kept if >> the definition of the template ID changes frequently >> - This implies that we loose the real-time decode, as the collecting >> process must wait for a certain time, just in case a delayed template >> withdrawal message and a new template record is received. For this >> reason only, I think this solution is poor >> - What if data record and template withdraw message were in the same >> IPFIX message? Probably it'd depend on the order within the message. > > The CP should be looking at export time when evaluating information > dependencies (scoped options, templates), anyway. This is completely > ignored by the protocol (though in retrospect perhaps it should have > been), but there are really only two temporal scoping policies that > make sense: > > 1. If dependencies cannot be withdrawn, then it can be held to be > valid for the entirety of its enclosing outer scope (the transport > session). In this case, ordering within the session is completely > unimportant. This is pretty much, by default, how 5101 treats things, > and I think how we think about these things on the list. > > 2. If dependencies may we withdrawn _AND REDEFINED_ (which is the > point of template withdrawals, after all), then the ordering of these > operations is critically important. Since ordering is important > _across_ streams, we can't use the sequence number. The only sync > signal we have that works across all streams is the export time. > > Actually building out a consistent set of rules for handling dependent > information could, I think, be done without changing the wire protocol > or the EP at all; it could basically be a set of CP guidelines. Though > I haven't thought all the way through the problem to be able to say > that with much confidence, yet. IIRC Andrew and I discussed something > along these lines in the form of a "scope user's guide" way back in > San Diego, but haven't had a chance to do anything with it since then. > >> Solution 2 >> We could propose a series of specifications that would reduce the >> likelihood that problem 1 or 2 would happen >> - transmission order is maintained within a stream >> - redefinition of the Template ID is not encouraged >> - template withdrawal message SHOULD be sent in the last used >> stream that carried the template ID to be removed >> - etc.. >> The drawback of this solution is that, even if the likelihood is >> reduced, there is no guarantee that the problem 1 and 2 will not happen. >> When I posted the initial email from this thread, I was still >> thinking along this solution 2 > > Something along the lines of this solution is, I think, as good as we > can do, in view of the issues with solution 1; see below. > > An EP using the per-stream technique will not lose data records due to > template withdrawals or template synchronization issues. This is an > advantage of using per-stream. But per-stream is an option; a > technique applicable to certain use cases that has specific advantages > in those cases. It uses each template only on a single stream, and > each stream has only a single template, but that is simply the EP's > prerogative, not a property of the protocol. > > An EP not using template withdrawals at all will not lose data records > due to template withdrawals, trivially. > > An EP choosing to use template withdrawals and cross-stream template > definitions may generate a message stream it is difficult but not > impossible for the CP to process without record loss. 5101 provides > guidelines and warnings to this effect already. > > (Again, data loss avoidance is _one_ requirement -- one policy -- that > the mechanisms of the IPFIX protocol can be used to implement. It is > not always of the utmost importance; otherwise we wouldn't support UDP > and PR-SCTP.) > >> Solution 1 >> The template IDs are scoped per stream, next to the the Transport >> Session and Observation Domain that generated the Template ID. >> Next to that, the transmission order per stream is maintained >> In this case, problem 1 and problem 2 will never happen >> The drawbacks are that >> - more template ID and records would be used. For example, the >> sampling option template record would require >> one template ID per stream and the export the "same" data >> record values per stream >> - "reducing redundancy" draft would not work across stream. Is >> this a big issue, I don't know! > > Indeed, this would cause options template records used for other than > MP/EP metadata export (as in RFC5103, ipfix-exporting-type, > ipfix-reducing-redundancy) not to work across streams. > > I agree with Gerhard (in his reply to this message): we shouldn't > change the protocol. And this proposal does define a new protocol. RFC > 5103 EPs would be incapable of interoperating with CPs that failed to > interpret cross-stream templates. 5103 CPs would be incapable of > interoperating with EPs that caused template collision. > > I would also repeat strenuously my warnings from the last time we > visited this proposal (around the Chicago, by default, how 5101 treats things, > and I think how we think about these things on the list. > > 2. If dependencies may we withdrawn _AND REDEFINED_ (which is the > point of template withdrawals, after all), then the ordering of these > operations is critically important. Since ordering is important > _across_ streams, we can't use the sequence number. The only sync > signal we have that works across all streams is the export time. > > Actually building out a consistent set of rules for handling dependent > information could, I think, be done without changing the wire protocol > or the EP at all; it could basically be a set of CP guidelines. Though > I haven't thought all the way through the problem to be able to say > that with much confidence, yet. IIRC Andrew and I discussed something > along these lines in the form of a "scope user's guide" way back in > San Diego, but haven't had a chance to do anything with it since then. > >> Solution 2 >> We could propose a series of specifications that would reduce the >> likelihood that problem 1 or 2 would happen >> - transmission order is maintained within a stream >> - redefinition of the Template ID is not encouraged >> - template withdrawal message SHOULD be sent in the last used >> stream that carried the template ID to be removed >> - etc.. >> The drawback of this solution is that, even if the likelihood is >> reduced, there is no guarantee that the problem 1 and 2 will not happen. >> When I posted the initial email from this thread, I was still >> thinking along this solution 2 > > Something along the lines of this solution is, I think, as good as we > can do, in view of the issues with solution 1; see below. > > An EP using the per-stream technique will not lose data records due to > template withdrawals or template synchronization issues. This is an > advantage of using per-stream. But per-stream is an option; a > technique applicable to certain use cases that has specific advantages > in those cases. It uses each template only on a single stream, and > each stream has only a single template, but that is simply the EP's > prerogative, not a property of the protocol. > > An EP not using template withdrawals at all will not lose data records > due to template withdrawals, trivially. > > An EP choosing to use template withdrawals and cross-stream template > definitions may generate a message stream it is difficult but not > impossible for the CP to process without record loss. 5101 provides > guidelines and warnings to this effect already. > > (Again, data loss avoidance is _one_ requirement -- one policy -- that > the mechanisms of the IPFIX protocol can be used to implement. It is > not always of the utmost importance; otherwise we wouldn't support UDP > and PR-SCTP.) > >> Solution 1 >> The template IDs are scoped per stream, next to the the Transport >> Session and Observation Domain that generated the Template ID. >> Next to that, the transmission order per stream is maintained >> In this case, problem 1 and problem 2 will never happen >> The drawbacks are that >> - more template ID and records would be used. For example, the >> sampling option template record would require >> one template ID per stream and the export the "same" data >> record values per stream >> - "reducing redundancy" draft would not work across stream. Is >> this a big issue, I don't know! > > Indeed, this would cause options template records used for other than > MP/EP metadata export (as in RFC5103, ipfix-exporting-type, > ipfix-reducing-redundancy) not to work across streams. > > I agree with Gerhard (in his reply to this message): we shouldn't > change the protocol. And this proposal does define a new protocol. RFC > 5103 EPs would be incapable of interoperating with CPs that failed to > interpret cross-stream templates. 5103 CPs would be incapable of > interoperating with EPs that caused template collision. > > I would also repeat strenuously my warnings from the last time we > visited this proposal (around the Chicago meeting last year) not to > introduce restrictions or changes into the protocol that apply only to > certain use cases and policies implementable with the greater protocol. > >> Note that there is a simple solution to address those two drawbacks: >> never send a template withdrawal message, and make those template IDs >> permanent as long as the SCTP association is up. Nothing is changed >> on the collector side specifications, as it doesn't have to know that >> the template IDs are permanent >> >> Now, the real question in this solution 1 is: what to do if we can't >> increase anymore the number of streams in the SCTP association? >> We export all the newly created template IDs and the associated data >> records on the stream 0 (as currently specified in the per-SCTP stream) >> Overloading the stream 0 is not an issue as the SCTP design is such >> that there is one pool of buffer and all streams will share it, i.e. >> "if you send 100k in one stream.. or 100k spread over all streams.. >> it makes no difference" dixit Randy Stewart. >> Note: stream 0 is mentioned for historical but could very well be >> another one. I'm not even sure we even need to specify a certain stream >> Note that on that stream 0, we can't deduce the loss per template. > > Hmm. per-stream should also provide guidelines that it works best in > cases where you have enough streams to handle all your templates. > > Cheers, > > Brian _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix meeting last year) not to > introduce restrictions or changes into the protocol that apply only to > certain use cases and policies implementable with the greater protocol. > >> Note that there is a simple solution to address those two drawbacks: >> never send a template withdrawal message, and make those template IDs >> permanent as long as the SCTP association is up. Nothing is changed >> on the collector side specifications, as it doesn't have to know that >> the template IDs are permanent >> >> Now, the real question in this solution 1 is: what to do if we can't >> increase anymore the number of streams in the SCTP association? >> We export all the newly created template IDs and the associated data >> records on the stream 0 (as currently specified in the per-SCTP stream) >> Overloading the stream 0 is not an issue as the SCTP design is such >> that there is one pool of buffer and all streams will share it, i.e. >> "if you send 100k in one stream.. or 100k spread over all streams.. >> it makes no difference" dixit Randy Stewart. >> Note: stream 0 is mentioned for historical but could very well be >> another one. I'm not even sure we even need to specify a certain stream >> Note that on that stream 0, we can't deduce the loss per template. > > Hmm. per-stream should also provide guidelines that it works best in > cases where you have enough streams to handle all your templates. > > Cheers, > > Brian _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 25 00:55:59 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D974C28C2A1; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 00:55:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.540, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bkTMnULbM0RD; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 00:55:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFF3728C50A; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 00:55:49 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A3CC28C50A for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 00:55:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q-p865wHXKZB for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 00:55:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp0.neclab.eu (smtp0.neclab.eu [195.37.70.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 378E528C553 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 00:55:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.office [127.0.0.1]) by smtp0.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96D852C000355; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:55:24 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (atlas2.office) Received: from smtp0.neclab.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas2.office [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hNyNZvi3ycfZ; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:55:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from mx1.office (mx1.office [10.1.1.23]) by smtp0.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7489D2C009E8E; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:55:09 +0100 (CET) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:55:07 +0100 Message-ID: <5F6519BF2DE0404D99B7C75607FF76FF53DC5C@mx1.office> X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Issue on IPFIX MIB Thread-Index: Ach3jB6ZzNVlXAw+Sve4UdbQE8Amzg== From: "Thomas Dietz" To: "IETF IPFIX Working Group" Cc: Juergen Quittek Subject: [IPFIX] Issue on IPFIX MIB X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1854802059==" Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org This is a multipart message in MIME format. --===============1854802059== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=SHA1; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0155_01C87794.80733C40" This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0155_01C87794.80733C40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear all, Benoit raised an issue with the IPFIX MIB in his mail to the list (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipfix/current/msg04216.html). This issues comes out of the real world implementation of the IPFIX protocol. The problem is that timeout values that time out flows are located at the template in the MIB. Now in the real world these timeouts are located at caches. To maFrom ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 25 00:55:59 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D974C28C2A1; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 00:55:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.540, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bkTMnULbM0RD; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 00:55:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFF3728C50A; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 00:55:49 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A3CC28C50A for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 00:55:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q-p865wHXKZB for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 00:55:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp0.neclab.eu (smtp0.neclab.eu [195.37.70.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 378E528C553 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 00:55:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.office [127.0.0.1]) by smtp0.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96D852C000355; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:55:24 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (atlas2.office) Received: from smtp0.neclab.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas2.office [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hNyNZvi3ycfZ; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:55:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from mx1.office (mx1.office [10.1.1.23]) by smtp0.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7489D2C009E8E; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:55:09 +0100 (CET) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:55:07 +0100 Message-ID: <5F6519BF2DE0404D99B7C75607FF76FF53DC5C@mx1.office> X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Issue on IPFIX MIB Thread-Index: Ach3jB6ZzNVlXAw+Sve4UdbQE8Amzg== From: "Thomas Dietz" To: "IETF IPFIX Working Group" Cc: Juergen Quittek Subject: [IPFIX] Issue on IPFIX MIB X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1854802059==" Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org This is a multipart message in MIME format. --===============1854802059== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=SHA1; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0155_01C87794.80733C40" This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0155_01C87794.80733C40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear all, Benoit raised an issue with the IPFIX MIB in his mail to the list (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipfix/current/msg04216.html). This issues comes out of the real world implementation of the IPFIX protocol. The problem is that timeout values that time out flows are located at the template in the MIB. Now in the real world these timeouts are located at caches. To make things worse caches cannot be 1:1 mapped to templates. Several caches can export their data with the same template. As a consequence we need to change the MIB. Since we don't have the term cache in our drafts one possibility would be to just eliminate the timeouts and make their use implementation dependant and not visible in the MIB. The second possibility would be to map the caches (and especially their timeouts) to the Metering Process. So we would get another table with e.g. a Metering Process ID and the timeouts. As a consequence we need to re-link all the tables (change their indexes) in the MIB to integrate the new Metering Process table. I will try to come up with such a new MIB structure asap, send it to the list and gather your comments. Hope to find a solution soon, Best Regards, Thomas -- Thomas Dietz E-mail: Thomas.Dietz@nw.neclab.eu NEC Europe Ltd. Phone: +49 6221 4342-128 NEC Laboratories Europe Fax: +49 6221 4342-155 Network Research Division Kurfuersten-Anlage 36 69115 Heidelberg, Germany http://www.nw.neclab.eu NEC Europe Limited Registered in England 2832014 Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL ------=_NextPart_000_0155_01C87794.80733C40 Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIJrjCCAwMw ggJsAhEAuS9gzIifoXpGCbhbcGyKrzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADCBwTELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAV BgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMTwwOgYDVQQLEzNDbGFzcyAyIFB1YmxpYyBQcmltYXJ5IENl cnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5IC0gRzIxOjA4BgNVBAsTMShjKSAxOTk4IFZlcmlTaWduLCBJ bmMuIC0gRm9yIGF1dGhvcml6ZWQgdXNlIG9ubHkxHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5l dHdvcmswHhcNOTgwNTE4MDAwMDAwWhcNMjgwODAxMjM1OTU5WjCBwTELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAV BgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMTwwOgYDVQQLEzNDbGFzcyAyIFB1YmxpYyBQcmltYXJ5IENl cnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5IC0gRzIxOjA4BgNVBAsTMShjKSAxOTk4IFZlcmlTaWduLCBJ bmMuIC0gRm9yIGF1dGhvcml6ZWQgdXNlIG9ubHkxHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5l dHdvcmswgZ8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADgY0AMIGJAoGBAKeIASF0LOcaA/CY4Zc8DyEI8Zzbl+ma /MIEBhO+X1LIzB4sElYsuAFpLMyZH62wlq55BPITOcF7mLoILOjChBMsqmnpCfTHqQKkQsIjT0rY 8A6i+zFsyeZvmScH9eb0THiebetGhvq5hslU8rLEr9RGHFrJFTD/DWz1LQ5tzn93AgMBAAEwDQYJ KoZIhvcNAQEFBQADgYEAci75f9HxcfvEnvbFXlGKQJi4aPibHIPY4p29/+2h5mbqLwn0ytfqpSuV 9iRghk1ELoOlxC2g0654aW9y2myuCPBjkjfmu8QwF613zEk1qs/Yj9G+txiWR3NqVCI0ZC22FptZ W7RRWTqzCxT0Et9noPStMmResUZyJ4wSe8VEtK4wggM5MIICoqADAgECAhBD3kUGfpHtO7Zw5BdS Zkm1MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMIHBMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIElu Yy4xPDA6BgNVBAsTM0NsYXNzIDIgUHVibGljIFByaW1hcnkgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBBdXRob3Jp dHkgLSBHMjE6MDgGA1UECxMxKGMpIDE5OTggVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4gLSBGb3IgYXV0aG9yaXpl ZCB1c2Ugb25seTEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29yazAeFw05ODA1MTkwMDAw MDBaFw0wOTEwMTIyMzU5NTlaMEMxETAPBgNVBAoTCFZlcmlTaWduMS4wLAYDVQQLEyVWZXJpU2ln biBDbGFzcyAyIE9uU2l0ZSBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIENBMIGdMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GLADCBhwKB gQDcKpmdbjP8u0F2xDkejfd255APdFVhYXI8+DdLGx8I6TAdcMUWiWAzRkh/xtCaPXaYw6HBrFLR F7kUBGmGXGFPs2Vli2Oi7iF8Qa+tckDDTZGzSb6Y+1fHWi6wS6fvCSTzgZ04xZLaSqeYUanYMHYt atavL37bESqF+2VgWkXoGwIBA6OBsDCBrTAPBgNVHRMECDAGAQH/AgEAMEQGA1UdIAQ9MDswOQYL YIZIAYb4RQEHFwIwKjAoBggrBgEFBQcCARYcaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYTA0 BgNVHR8ELTArMCmgJ6AlhiNodHRwOi8vY3JsLnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9wY2EyLWcyLmNybDALBgNV HQ8EBAMCAQYwEQYJYIZIAYb4QgEBBAQDAgEGMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4GBAImQvq5zldxCHk2g j+8C+6loWwvtLEWziOuOTs80iqY1DoOM0LQTL+uqlfw2fmiFnPw3WVPKuQwGhOE7ZAcLITREdYg3 NsW1WA2oODuvoGG4fGwXn+H/4dpDqEKGAl1K7ZyQjRKqTMJuA5gfQ69+m0m1tHSjbq1qW+svscua HqaaMIIDZjCCAs+gAwIBAgIQRuECOhCAVuaaKKVALy7ycDANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFADBDMREwDwYD VQQKEwhWZXJpU2lnbjEuMCwGA1UECxMlVmVyaVNpZ24gQ2xhc3MgMiBPblNpdGUgSW5kaXZpZHVh bCBDQTAeFw0wNzEwMjQwMDAwMDBaFw0wODEwMjMyMzU5NTlaMIHdMRswGQYDVQQKDBJORUMgRXVy b3BlIExpbWl0ZWQxRjBEBgNVBAsMPXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9DUFMgSW5j b3JwLiBieSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFREKGMpOTkxNTAzBgNVBAsMLENvbXBhbnkgLSBORUMgTGFib3Jh dG9yaWVzIEV1cm9wZSBIZWlkZWxiZXJnMRUwEwYDVQQDDAxUaG9tYXMgRGlldke things worse caches cannot be 1:1 mapped to templates. Several caches can export their data with the same template. As a consequence we need to change the MIB. Since we don't have the term cache in our drafts one possibility would be to just eliminate the timeouts and make their use implementation dependant and not visible in the MIB. The second possibility would be to map the caches (and especially their timeouts) to the Metering Process. So we would get another table with e.g. a Metering Process ID and the timeouts. As a consequence we need to re-link all the tables (change their indexes) in the MIB to integrate the new Metering Process table. I will try to come up with such a new MIB structure asap, send it to the list and gather your comments. Hope to find a solution soon, Best Regards, Thomas -- Thomas Dietz E-mail: Thomas.Dietz@nw.neclab.eu NEC Europe Ltd. Phone: +49 6221 4342-128 NEC Laboratories Europe Fax: +49 6221 4342-155 Network Research Division Kurfuersten-Anlage 36 69115 Heidelberg, Germany http://www.nw.neclab.eu NEC Europe Limited Registered in England 2832014 Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL ------=_NextPart_000_0155_01C87794.80733C40 Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIJrjCCAwMw ggJsAhEAuS9gzIifoXpGCbhbcGyKrzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADCBwTELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAV BgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMTwwOgYDVQQLEzNDbGFzcyAyIFB1YmxpYyBQcmltYXJ5IENl cnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5IC0gRzIxOjA4BgNVBAsTMShjKSAxOTk4IFZlcmlTaWduLCBJ bmMuIC0gRm9yIGF1dGhvcml6ZWQgdXNlIG9ubHkxHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5l dHdvcmswHhcNOTgwNTE4MDAwMDAwWhcNMjgwODAxMjM1OTU5WjCBwTELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAV BgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMTwwOgYDVQQLEzNDbGFzcyAyIFB1YmxpYyBQcmltYXJ5IENl cnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5IC0gRzIxOjA4BgNVBAsTMShjKSAxOTk4IFZlcmlTaWduLCBJ bmMuIC0gRm9yIGF1dGhvcml6ZWQgdXNlIG9ubHkxHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5l dHdvcmswgZ8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADgY0AMIGJAoGBAKeIASF0LOcaA/CY4Zc8DyEI8Zzbl+ma /MIEBhO+X1LIzB4sElYsuAFpLMyZH62wlq55BPITOcF7mLoILOjChBMsqmnpCfTHqQKkQsIjT0rY 8A6i+zFsyeZvmScH9eb0THiebetGhvq5hslU8rLEr9RGHFrJFTD/DWz1LQ5tzn93AgMBAAEwDQYJ KoZIhvcNAQEFBQADgYEAci75f9HxcfvEnvbFXlGKQJi4aPibHIPY4p29/+2h5mbqLwn0ytfqpSuV 9iRghk1ELoOlxC2g0654aW9y2myuCPBjkjfmu8QwF613zEk1qs/Yj9G+txiWR3NqVCI0ZC22FptZ W7RRWTqzCxT0Et9noPStMmResUZyJ4wSe8VEtK4wggM5MIICoqADAgECAhBD3kUGfpHtO7Zw5BdS Zkm1MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMIHBMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIElu Yy4xPDA6BgNVBAsTM0NsYXNzIDIgUHVibGljIFByaW1hcnkgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBBdXRob3Jp dHkgLSBHMjE6MDgGA1UECxMxKGMpIDE5OTggVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4gLSBGb3IgYXV0aG9yaXpl ZCB1c2Ugb25seTEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29yazAeFw05ODA1MTkwMDAw MDBaFw0wOTEwMTIyMzU5NTlaMEMxETAPBgNVBAoTCFZlcmlTaWduMS4wLAYDVQQLEyVWZXJpU2ln biBDbGFzcyAyIE9uU2l0ZSBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIENBMIGdMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GLADCBhwKB gQDcKpmdbjP8u0F2xDkejfd255APdFVhYXI8+DdLGx8I6TAdcMUWiWAzRkh/xtCaPXaYw6HBrFLR F7kUBGmGXGFPs2Vli2Oi7iF8Qa+tckDDTZGzSb6Y+1fHWi6wS6fvCSTzgZ04xZLaSqeYUanYMHYt atavL37bESqF+2VgWkXoGwIBA6OBsDCBrTAPBgNVHRMECDAGAQH/AgEAMEQGA1UdIAQ9MDswOQYL YIZIAYb4RQEHFwIwKjAoBggrBgEFBQcCARYcaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYTA0 BgNVHR8ELTArMCmgJ6AlhiNodHRwOi8vY3JsLnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9wY2EyLWcyLmNybDALBgNV HQ8EBAMCAQYwEQYJYIZIAYb4QgEBBAQDAgEGMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4GBAImQvq5zldxCHk2g j+8C+6loWwvtLEWziOuOTs80iqY1DoOM0LQTL+uqlfw2fmiFnPw3WVPKuQwGhOE7ZAcLITREdYg3 NsW1WA2oODuvoGG4fGwXn+H/4dpDqEKGAl1K7ZyQjRKqTMJuA5gfQ69+m0m1tHSjbq1qW+svscua HqaaMIIDZjCCAs+gAwIBAgIQRuECOhCAVuaaKKVALy7ycDANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFADBDMREwDwYD VQQKEwhWZXJpU2lnbjEuMCwGA1UECxMlVmVyaVNpZ24gQ2xhc3MgMiBPblNpdGUgSW5kaXZpZHVh bCBDQTAeFw0wNzEwMjQwMDAwMDBaFw0wODEwMjMyMzU5NTlaMIHdMRswGQYDVQQKDBJORUMgRXVy b3BlIExpbWl0ZWQxRjBEBgNVBAsMPXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9DUFMgSW5j b3JwLiBieSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFREKGMpOTkxNTAzBgNVBAsMLENvbXBhbnkgLSBORUMgTGFib3Jh dG9yaWVzIEV1cm9wZSBIZWlkZWxiZXJnMRUwEwYDVQQDDAxUaG9tYXMgRGlldHoxKDAmBgkqhkiG 9w0BCQEWGXRob21hcy5kaWV0ekBudy5uZWNsYWIuZXUwgZ8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADgY0AMIGJ AoGBALC4yWRsqDAwBYKjb3zoUfE18Tj5pOb+b2u/jmoeW6I3KKtzQxSIcW6qGrkrks0px63VYr72 6VF72Qhv4K31ntSOOLVOgz/yUXu2TBqsGxzcpjHD9LIJPK2LbEoo8m4t5mcVQReNhvrsCFukpYZn tb6xoCmmFfxcXeZh48Rhn4wVAgMBAAGjgb8wgbwwCQYDVR0TBAIwADBEBgNVHSAEPTA7MDkGC2CG SAGG+EUBBxcCMCowKAYIKwYBBQUHAgEWHGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9ycGEwCwYD VR0PBAQDAgWgMBEGCWCGSAGG+EIBAQQEAwIHgDBJBgNVHR8EQjBAMD6gPKA6hjhodHRwOi8vb25z aXRlY3JsLnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9PblNpdGVQdWJsaWMvTGF0ZXN0Q1JMLmNybDANBgkqhkiG9w0B AQQFAAOBgQAeld8hZLp3F1TtzJkmSe1io5guKbUqux6y0l//Ya5ESWBOpApe3vweWAsZYbn3dw0U F73oKpjuW6qdSNJizqtngj9is0DLLqH3u2PG3zksB7oy4hYPKejEuq4HXz3/bIxZSwvl7S9XL0Ce tSXJji+Rh4wFkL3GLZkWrlXPO+Y5tTGCAuowggLmAgEBMFcwQzERMA8GA1UEChMIVmVyaVNpZ24x LjAsBgNVBAsTJVZlcmlTaWduIENsYXNzIDIgT25TaXRlIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgQ0ECEEbhAjoQgFbm miilQC8u8nAwCQYFKw4DAhoFAKCCAekwGAYJKoZIhvcNAQkDMQsGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAcBgkqhkiG 9w0BCQUxDxcNMDgwMjI1MDg1NTA3WjAjBgkqhkiG9w0BCQQxFgQU0sP3dLKYreVhP6ouBsZSRDZ2 6XswZgYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMVkwVzBDMREwDwYDVQQKEwhWZXJpU2lnbjEuMCwGA1UECxMlVmVyaVNp Z24gQ2xhc3MgMiBPblNpdGUgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBDQQIQRuECOhCAVuaaKKVALy7ycDBoBgsqhkiG 9w0BCRACCzFZoFcwQzERMA8GA1UEChMIVmVyaVNpZ24xLjAsBgNVBAsTJVZlcmlTaWduIENsYXNz IDIgT25TaXRlIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgQ0ECEEbhAjoQgFbmmiilQC8u8nAwgbcGCSqGSIb3DQEJDzGB qTCBpjALBglghkgBZQMEASowCwYJYIZIAWUDBAEWMAoGCCqGSIb3DQMHMAsGCWCGSAFlAwQBAjAO BggqhkiG9w0DAgICAIAwDQYIKoZIhvcNAwICAUAwBwYFKw4DAgcwDQYIKoZIhvcNAwICASgwBwYF Kw4DAhowCwYJYIZIAWUDBAIDMAsGCWCGSAFlAwQCAjALBglghkgBZQMEAgEwCgYIKoZIhvcNAgUw DQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQAEgYBT+KT9f3+2uZw8zq76DIos4Rn0Fz21/Q1nB7NDg3+N9nZH5EpWBe6V H3MWPuD08Z+sr1QMUTc/+Ha8qJrOrduHpU0tq+j7YkMQh7KcoHXg30mdW8KI3+lKOuXfB4WovnuT ua7egdhFzJq89GxzWy36wXHtj1WFty1rx0nYJ+N0VgAAAAAAAA== ------=_NextPart_000_0155_01C87794.80733C40-- --===============1854802059== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix --===============1854802059==-- HoxKDAmBgkqhkiG 9w0BCQEWGXRob21hcy5kaWV0ekBudy5uZWNsYWIuZXUwgZ8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADgY0AMIGJ AoGBALC4yWRsqDAwBYKjb3zoUfE18Tj5pOb+b2u/jmoeW6I3KKtzQxSIcW6qGrkrks0px63VYr72 6VF72Qhv4K31ntSOOLVOgz/yUXu2TBqsGxzcpjHD9LIJPK2LbEoo8m4t5mcVQReNhvrsCFukpYZn tb6xoCmmFfxcXeZh48Rhn4wVAgMBAAGjgb8wgbwwCQYDVR0TBAIwADBEBgNVHSAEPTA7MDkGC2CG SAGG+EUBBxcCMCowKAYIKwYBBQUHAgEWHGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9ycGEwCwYD VR0PBAQDAgWgMBEGCWCGSAGG+EIBAQQEAwIHgDBJBgNVHR8EQjBAMD6gPKA6hjhodHRwOi8vb25z aXRlY3JsLnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9PblNpdGVQdWJsaWMvTGF0ZXN0Q1JMLmNybDANBgkqhkiG9w0B AQQFAAOBgQAeld8hZLp3F1TtzJkmSe1io5guKbUqux6y0l//Ya5ESWBOpApe3vweWAsZYbn3dw0U F73oKpjuW6qdSNJizqtngj9is0DLLqH3u2PG3zksB7oy4hYPKejEuq4HXz3/bIxZSwvl7S9XL0Ce tSXJji+Rh4wFkL3GLZkWrlXPO+Y5tTGCAuowggLmAgEBMFcwQzERMA8GA1UEChMIVmVyaVNpZ24x LjAsBgNVBAsTJVZlcmlTaWduIENsYXNzIDIgT25TaXRlIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgQ0ECEEbhAjoQgFbm miilQC8u8nAwCQYFKw4DAhoFAKCCAekwGAYJKoZIhvcNAQkDMQsGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAcBgkqhkiG 9w0BCQUxDxcNMDgwMjI1MDg1NTA3WjAjBgkqhkiG9w0BCQQxFgQU0sP3dLKYreVhP6ouBsZSRDZ2 6XswZgYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMVkwVzBDMREwDwYDVQQKEwhWZXJpU2lnbjEuMCwGA1UECxMlVmVyaVNp Z24gQ2xhc3MgMiBPblNpdGUgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBDQQIQRuECOhCAVuaaKKVALy7ycDBoBgsqhkiG 9w0BCRACCzFZoFcwQzERMA8GA1UEChMIVmVyaVNpZ24xLjAsBgNVBAsTJVZlcmlTaWduIENsYXNz IDIgT25TaXRlIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgQ0ECEEbhAjoQgFbmmiilQC8u8nAwgbcGCSqGSIb3DQEJDzGB qTCBpjALBglghkgBZQMEASowCwYJYIZIAWUDBAEWMAoGCCqGSIb3DQMHMAsGCWCGSAFlAwQBAjAO BggqhkiG9w0DAgICAIAwDQYIKoZIhvcNAwICAUAwBwYFKw4DAgcwDQYIKoZIhvcNAwICASgwBwYF Kw4DAhowCwYJYIZIAWUDBAIDMAsGCWCGSAFlAwQCAjALBglghkgBZQMEAgEwCgYIKoZIhvcNAgUw DQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQAEgYBT+KT9f3+2uZw8zq76DIos4Rn0Fz21/Q1nB7NDg3+N9nZH5EpWBe6V H3MWPuD08Z+sr1QMUTc/+Ha8qJrOrduHpU0tq+j7YkMQh7KcoHXg30mdW8KI3+lKOuXfB4WovnuT ua7egdhFzJq89GxzWy36wXHtj1WFty1rx0nYJ+N0VgAAAAAAAA== ------=_NextPart_000_0155_01C87794.80733C40-- --===============1854802059== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix --===============1854802059==-- From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 25 02:00:08 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BFF828C23D; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 02:00:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.582 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.582 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RCTEsZdmgaRx; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 02:00:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A493A28C23F; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 02:00:05 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@ietf.org Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id EF5223A6B70; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 02:00:02 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Message-Id: <20080225100002.EF5223A6B70@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 02:00:02 -0800 (PST) Cc: ipfix@ietf.org Subject: [IPFIX] I-D Action:draft-ietf-ipfix-exporting-type-01.txt X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Flow Information Export Working Group of the IETF. Title : Exporting Type Information for IPFIX Information Elements Author(s) : E. Boschi, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ipfix-exporting-type-01.txt Pages : 19 Date : 2008-02-25 This document describes an extension to IPFIX to allow the encoding of IPFIX Information Model properties within an IPFIX Message stream, to allow the export of extended type information for enterprise- specific Information Elements. This format is designed to facilitate interoperability and reusability among a wide variety of applications and tools. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-exporting-type-01.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ipfix-exporting-type-01.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-exporting-type-01.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how toFrom ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 25 02:00:08 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BFF828C23D; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 02:00:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.582 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.582 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RCTEsZdmgaRx; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 02:00:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A493A28C23F; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 02:00:05 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@ietf.org Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id EF5223A6B70; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 02:00:02 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Message-Id: <20080225100002.EF5223A6B70@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 02:00:02 -0800 (PST) Cc: ipfix@ietf.org Subject: [IPFIX] I-D Action:draft-ietf-ipfix-exporting-type-01.txt X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Flow Information Export Working Group of the IETF. Title : Exporting Type Information for IPFIX Information Elements Author(s) : E. Boschi, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ipfix-exporting-type-01.txt Pages : 19 Date : 2008-02-25 This document describes an extension to IPFIX to allow the encoding of IPFIX Information Model properties within an IPFIX Message stream, to allow the export of extended type information for enterprise- specific Information Elements. This format is designed to facilitate interoperability and reusability among a wide variety of applications and tools. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-exporting-type-01.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ipfix-exporting-type-01.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-exporting-type-01.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-02-25015638.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-exporting-type-01.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ipfix-exporting-type-01.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-02-25015638.I-D\@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix --NextPart-- manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-02-25015638.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-exporting-type-01.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ipfix-exporting-type-01.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-02-25015638.I-D\@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix --NextPart-- From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 25 06:04:50 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79EE128C5FA; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 06:04:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.540, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dHMeAFe-N5Fh; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 06:04:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B00428C736; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 06:02:47 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAFA728C75E for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 06:02:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uBC3Jmz+nPOj for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 06:02:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7173C28C744 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 06:00:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from ams-dkim-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.138]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Feb 2008 15:00:11 +0100 Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150]) by ams-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m1PE0B79031955; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:00:11 +0100 Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.71.48]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m1PE0AXL009755; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:00:10 GMT Received: from [144.254.153.37] (dhcp-144-254-153-37.cisco.com [144.254.153.37]) by cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id m1PE0Au08467; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:00:10 GMT Message-ID: <47C2CA5E.10303@cisco.com> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:02:06 +0000 From: Paul Aitken User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-GB; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080201 SeaMonkey/1.1.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thomas Dietz References: <5F6519BF2DE0404D99B7C75607FF76FF53DC5C@mx1.office> In-Reply-To: <5F6519BF2DE0404D99B7C75607FF76FF53DC5C@mx1.office> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=3015; t=1203948011; x=1204812011; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim1002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=paitken@cisco.com; z=From:=20Paul=20Aitken=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[Sender=3A=20=20ipfix-bounces@ietf.org] =20=20[IPFIX]=20Issue=20on=20IPFIX=20MIB |Sender:=20; bh=OpdAzoJp9NxCN5bdWWnagGw27md2IO8cOVOOaBtwO+Y=; b=sMhl69buDBDX/u1uBQ0T7vcez1lUdgSr4yP4XLR7PEXQDOprcSrztr2hU6 DEtfGPtkwfuga7nTmY3WCh6YqZIgaAy3WRz0Lc7CqWfrXiA5rrQK/JrZ6k/w wgVQ3/+YwG; Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-1; header.From=paitken@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim1002 verified; ); Cc: IETF IPFIX Working Group , Juergen Quittek Subject: Re: [IPFIX] [Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org] Issue on IPFIX MIB X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Thomas, > Benoit raised an issue with the IPFIX MIB in his mail to the list > (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipfix/current/msg04216.html). > This issues comes out of the real world implementation of the IPFIX > protocol. The problem is that timeout values that time out flows are > located at the template in the MIB. Now in the real world these > timeouts are located at caches. That makes a lot of sense, since these timeouts pertain to flows, and caches are collections of flows. Whereas templates are produced by the exporting process (IPFIX-ARCH, figure 6) and are therefore a step too far along in the IPFIX process. In short, templates can't control the timing of data export! > To make things worse caches cannot be 1:1 mapped to templates. > Several caches can export their data with the same template. The contents of a single cache could be exported using multiple templates. eg, templates could be created based on which fields were available. ie, if a value was not observed for a particular field then a new template would be created which doesn't include that field. > As a consequence we need to change the MIB. Since we don't have the > term cache in our drafts one possibility would be to just eliminate > the timeouts and make their use implementation dependant and not > visible in the MIB. Looking at IPFIX-ARCH figure 4, surely these timers control the transfer of data from the metering process to the exporting process? So in a sense they're a missing piece of the IPFIX picture, and eliminating them doesn't make sense. > The second possibility would be to map the caches (and especially > their timeouts) to the Metering Process. So we would get another > table with e.g. a Metering Process ID and the timeouts. You should allow the possibility of multiple caches per metering process, each with their own properties. eg, hardware and software caches that are configured independently. The difference between one metering process with N caches, and N metering processes each with their own cache, is that in the former case a packet is processed only once and appears in just one of the caches, whereas in the latter case the packet may be processed N times and appear once in each cache. Further, changing the parameters of a metering process affects the N caches which it populates, whereas each metering process is independent, so changing the configuration of one doesn't normally change the configuration of any other. The only exception is when a global timeout is enforced across all caches. Cheers, P. > As a consequence we need to re-link all the tables (change their > indexes) in the MIB to integrate the new Metering Process table. > > I will try to come up with such a new MIB structure asap, send it to > the list and gather your comments. > > Hope to find a solution soon, > > Best Regards, > > Thomas -- Paul Aitken Cisco Systems Ltd, Edinburgh, Scotland. _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 25 06:04:50 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79EE128C5FA; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 06:04:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.540, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dHMeAFe-N5Fh; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 06:04:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B00428C736; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 06:02:47 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAFA728C75E for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 06:02:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uBC3Jmz+nPOj for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 06:02:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7173C28C744 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 06:00:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from ams-dkim-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.138]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Feb 2008 15:00:11 +0100 Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150]) by ams-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m1PE0B79031955; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:00:11 +0100 Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.71.48]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m1PE0AXL009755; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:00:10 GMT Received: from [144.254.153.37] (dhcp-144-254-153-37.cisco.com [144.254.153.37]) by cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id m1PE0Au08467; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:00:10 GMT Message-ID: <47C2CA5E.10303@cisco.com> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:02:06 +0000 From: Paul Aitken User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-GB; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080201 SeaMonkey/1.1.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thomas Dietz References: <5F6519BF2DE0404D99B7C75607FF76FF53DC5C@mx1.office> In-Reply-To: <5F6519BF2DE0404D99B7C75607FF76FF53DC5C@mx1.office> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=3015; t=1203948011; x=1204812011; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim1002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=paitken@cisco.com; z=From:=20Paul=20Aitken=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[Sender=3A=20=20ipfix-bounces@ietf.org] =20=20[IPFIX]=20Issue=20on=20IPFIX=20MIB |Sender:=20; bh=OpdAzoJp9NxCN5bdWWnagGw27md2IO8cOVOOaBtwO+Y=; b=sMhl69buDBDX/u1uBQ0T7vcez1lUdgSr4yP4XLR7PEXQDOprcSrztr2hU6 DEtfGPtkwfuga7nTmY3WCh6YqZIgaAy3WRz0Lc7CqWfrXiA5rrQK/JrZ6k/w wgVQ3/+YwG; Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-1; header.From=paitken@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim1002 verified; ); Cc: IETF IPFIX Working Group , Juergen Quittek Subject: Re: [IPFIX] [Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org] Issue on IPFIX MIB X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Thomas, > Benoit raised an issue with the IPFIX MIB in his mail to the list > (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipfix/current/msg04216.html). > This issues comes out of the real world implementation of the IPFIX > protocol. The problem is that timeout values that time out flows are > located at the template in the MIB. Now in the real world these > timeouts are located at caches. That makes a lot of sense, since these timeouts pertain to flows, and caches are collections of flows. Whereas templates are produced by the exporting process (IPFIX-ARCH, figure 6) and are therefore a step too far along in the IPFIX process. In short, templates can't control the timing of data export! > To make things worse caches cannot be 1:1 mapped to templates. > Several caches can export their data with the same template. The contents of a single cache could be exported using multiple templates. eg, templates could be created based on which fields were available. ie, if a value was not observed for a particular field then a new template would be created which doesn't include that field. > As a consequence we need to change the MIB. Since we don't have the > term cache in our drafts one possibility would be to just eliminate > the timeouts and make their use implementation dependant and not > visible in the MIB. Looking at IPFIX-ARCH figure 4, surely these timers control the transfer of data from the metering process to the exporting process? So in a sense they're a missing piece of the IPFIX picture, and eliminating them doesn't make sense. > The second possibility would be to map the caches (and especially > their timeouts) to the Metering Process. So we would get another > table with e.g. a Metering Process ID and the timeouts. You should allow the possibility of multiple caches per metering process, each with their own properties. eg, hardware and software caches that are configured independently. The difference between one metering process with N caches, and N metering processes each with their own cache, is that in the former case a packet is processed only once and appears in just one of the caches, whereas in the latter case the packet may be processed N times and appear once in each cache. Further, changing the parameters of a metering process affects the N caches which it populates, whereas each metering process is independent, so changing the configuration of one doesn't normally change the configuration of any other. The only exception is when a global timeout is enforced across all caches. Cheers, P. > As a consequence we need to re-link all the tables (change their > indexes) in the MIB to integrate the new Metering Process table. > > I will try to come up with such a new MIB structure asap, send it to > the list and gather your comments. > > Hope to find a solution soon, > > Best Regards, > > Thomas -- Paul Aitken Cisco Systems Ltd, Edinburgh, Scotland. _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 25 08:51:56 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9B2D3A6CF2; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 08:51:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.956 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.956 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.519, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TVvtvTHnpkZE; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 08:51:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D81928C7CC; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 08:51:21 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D685628C7CC for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 08:51:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UjyUYpVB5oTO for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 08:51:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx06.uni-tuebingen.de (mx06.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.3.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C780C28C715 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 08:50:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from [134.2.172.138] (u-172-c138.cs.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.172.138]) by mx06.uni-tuebingen.de (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m1PGoLt5012536 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:50:21 +0100 Message-ID: <47C2F1CD.5020407@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:50:21 +0100 From: Gerhard Muenz User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "ipfix@ietf.org" X-AntiVirus: checked by AntiVir MailGate (version: 2.1.2-11; AVE: 7.6.0.67; VDF: 7.0.2.189; host: mx06) Subject: [IPFIX] New version of IPFIX configuration draft X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0494723802==" Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --===============0494723802== Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms040809030600050507080303" This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms040809030600050507080303 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear all, A new revision of the IPFIX/PSAMP configuration data model has been published: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-muenz-ipfix-configuration-04.tx= t Apart from smaller changes in the model itself, the big change compared to the previous version concerns the specification language: instead of XML Schema, we now use YANG, a new language for modelling Netconf data models. As a consequence, conformance to Netconf can be guaranteed. We received a lot of valuable feedback and support from Martin Bjorklund who is a Netconf expert and author of the YANG draft. We will try to get some additional feedback from other Netconf experts as well. Regards, Gerhard --=20 Dipl.-Ing. Gerhard M=FCnz Computer Networks and Internet Wilhelm Schickard Institute for Computer Science University of TuebiFrom ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 25 08:51:56 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9B2D3A6CF2; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 08:51:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.956 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.956 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.519, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TVvtvTHnpkZE; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 08:51:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D81928C7CC; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 08:51:21 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D685628C7CC for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 08:51:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UjyUYpVB5oTO for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 08:51:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx06.uni-tuebingen.de (mx06.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.3.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C780C28C715 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 08:50:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from [134.2.172.138] (u-172-c138.cs.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.172.138]) by mx06.uni-tuebingen.de (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m1PGoLt5012536 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:50:21 +0100 Message-ID: <47C2F1CD.5020407@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:50:21 +0100 From: Gerhard Muenz User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "ipfix@ietf.org" X-AntiVirus: checked by AntiVir MailGate (version: 2.1.2-11; AVE: 7.6.0.67; VDF: 7.0.2.189; host: mx06) Subject: [IPFIX] New version of IPFIX configuration draft X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0494723802==" Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --===============0494723802== Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms040809030600050507080303" This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms040809030600050507080303 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear all, A new revision of the IPFIX/PSAMP configuration data model has been published: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-muenz-ipfix-configuration-04.tx= t Apart from smaller changes in the model itself, the big change compared to the previous version concerns the specification language: instead of XML Schema, we now use YANG, a new language for modelling Netconf data models. As a consequence, conformance to Netconf can be guaranteed. We received a lot of valuable feedback and support from Martin Bjorklund who is a Netconf expert and author of the YANG draft. We will try to get some additional feedback from other Netconf experts as well. Regards, Gerhard --=20 Dipl.-Ing. Gerhard M=FCnz Computer Networks and Internet Wilhelm Schickard Institute for Computer Science University of Tuebingen Sand 13 (Room B309), D-72076 Tuebingen, Germany Phone: +49 7071 29-70534 Fax: +49 7071 29-5220 E-mail: muenz@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de WWW: http://net.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/~muenz --------------ms040809030600050507080303 Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIJdTCC AxUwggJ+oAMCAQICED9aGsYWkMr+s4zmyODhB+IwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwYjELMAkGA1UE BhMCWkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMT I1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBMB4XDTA4MDIxMzE1MTUxN1oX DTA5MDIxMjE1MTUxN1owbDEOMAwGA1UEBBMFTXVlbnoxEDAOBgNVBCoTB0dlcmhhcmQxFjAU BgNVBAMTDUdlcmhhcmQgTXVlbnoxMDAuBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWIW11ZW56QGluZm9ybWF0aWsu dW5pLXR1ZWJpbmdlbi5kZTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBAMZex/Sq sAxkzTVvKP/YAgkaeXA+ngH59Aa0bbRPsKOWzAndGqty5EKcEzrnKqEJ27qHFvoF/pHp88U2 7SJI/xbqkgWeV2jRaldipZQYlnjYLQcmb4cewIFuGRRSVrm3BquzX38aYazuE4+DVH2Z3a8z n0FcdMXhA1NR2Ma1rh4G7SIeZ+hC7czbvNRPraBliGdQhs8J/6yP/iL8aNYAl9c7CL4ofRj8 Y9orMOV/4vtWTq76/VQUVdbhUMiv0D8aHqI1ZvGskhRRvmITgQRVbbn8N8WTpZ0UCgMDjxPP 9i5IhLfp6oBtsKl4OZ0RXvSLZrbJTkBX3vnEutcyxDvyNgMCAwEAAaM+MDwwLAYDVR0RBCUw I4EhbXVlbnpAaW5mb3JtYXRpay51bmktdHVlYmluZ2VuLmRlMAwGA1UdEwEB/wQCMAAwDQYJ KoZIhvcNAQEFBQADgYEAX5SiD6epJePwBjJumOsTF6wzeuZRDLYlN+fOpXwd2C0Yx6i8iIZ9 l/J/nGaE1YpJPfX5oJDE+tOk1vYh2E9ThLOj9kJ3buZmgOCdVu90qtCWhfhli7RCYcJ+G9M3 FCnqbrzI/waPPXGB8/DY1HKgPj5G+oKPUK+GD2aE1Q3PYGowggMVMIICfqADAgECAhA/WhrG FpDK/rOM5sjg4QfiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUwIwYDVQQKExxU aGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZyAoUHR5KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwg RnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBDQTAeFw0wODAyMTMxNTE1MTdaFw0wOTAyMTIxNTE1MTdaMGwx DjAMBgNVBAQTBU11ZW56MRAwDgYDVQQqEwdHZXJoYXJkMRYwFAYDVQQDEw1HZXJoYXJkIE11 ZW56MTAwLgYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFiFtdWVuekBpbmZvcm1hdGlrLnVuaS10dWViaW5nZW4uZGUw ggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQDGXsf0qrAMZM01byj/2AIJGnlwPp4B +fQGtG20T7CjlswJ3RqrcuRCnBM65yqhCdu6hxb6Bf6R6fPFNu0iSP8W6pIFnldo0WpXYqWU GJZ42C0HJm+HHsCBbhkUUla5twars19/GmGs7hOPg1R9md2vM59BXHTF4QNTUdjGta4eBu0i HmfoQu3M27zUT62gZYhnUIbPCf+sj/4i/GjWAJfXOwi+KH0Y/GPaKzDlf+L7Vk6u+v1UFFXW 4VDIr9A/Gh6iNWbxrJIUUb5iE4EEVW25/DfFk6WdFAoDA48Tz/YuSIS36eqAbbCpeDmdEV70 i2a2yU5AV975xLrXMsQ78jYDAgMBAAGjPjA8MCwGA1UdEQQlMCOBIW11ZW56QGluZm9ybWF0 aWsudW5pLXR1ZWJpbmdlbi5kZTAMBgNVHRMBAf8EAjAAMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4GBAF+U og+nqSXj8AYybpjrExesM3rmUQy2JTfnzqV8HdgtGMeovIiGfZfyf5xmhNWKST31+aCQxPrT pNb2IdhPU4Szo/ZCd27mZoDgnVbvdKrQloX4ZYu0QmHCfhvTNxQp6m68yP8Gjz1xgfPw2NRy oD4+RvqCj1Cvhg9mhNUNz2BqMIIDPzCCAqigAwIBAgIBDTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADCB0TEL MAkGA1UEBhMCWkExFTATBgNVBAgTDFdlc3Rlcm4gQ2FwZTESMBAGA1UEBxMJQ2FwZSBUb3du MRowGAYDVQQKExFUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZzEoMCYGA1UECxMfQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBT ZXJ2aWNlcyBEaXZpc2lvbjEkMCIGA1UEAxMbVGhhd3RlIFBlcnNvbmFsIEZyZWVtYWlsIENB MSswKQYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhxwZXJzb25hbC1mcmVlbWFpbEB0aGF3dGUuY29tMB4XDTAzMDcx NzAwMDAwMFoXDTEzMDcxNjIzNTk1OVowYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0 ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVl bWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBMIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQDEpjxVc1X7TrnK mVoeaMB1BHCd3+n/ox7svc31W/Iadr1/DDph8r9RzgHU5VAKMNcCY1osiRVwjt3J8CuFWqo/ cVbLrzwLB+fxH5E2JCoTzyvV84J3PQO+K/67GD4Hv0CAAmTXp6a7n2XRxSpUhQ9IBH+nttE8 YQRAHmQZcmC3+wIDAQABo4GUMIGRMBIGA1UdEwEB/wQIMAYBAf8CAQAwQwYDVR0fBDwwOjA4 oDagNIYyaHR0cDovL2NybC50aGF3dGUuY29tL1RoYXd0ZVBlcnNvbmFsRnJlZW1haWxDQS5j cmwwCwYDVR0PBAQDAgEGMCkGA1UdEQQiMCCkHjAcMRowGAYDVQQDExFQcml2YXRlTGFiZWwy LTEzODANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOBgQBIjNFQg+oLLswNo2asZw9/r6y+whehQ5aUnX9MIbj4 Nh+qLZ82L8D0HFAgk3A8/a3hYWLD2ToZfoSxmRsAxRoLgnSeJVCUYsfbJ3FXJY3dqZw5jowg T2Vfldr394fWxghOrvbqNOUQGls1TXfjViF4gtwhGTXeJLHTHUb/XV9lTzGCA2QwggNgAgEB MHYwYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0 ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBAhA/WhrG FpDK/rOM5sjg4QfiMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggHDMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEw HAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTA4MDIyNTE2NTAyMVowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFPBcshGQZrngen Sand 13 (Room B309), D-72076 Tuebingen, Germany Phone: +49 7071 29-70534 Fax: +49 7071 29-5220 E-mail: muenz@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de WWW: http://net.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/~muenz --------------ms040809030600050507080303 Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIJdTCC AxUwggJ+oAMCAQICED9aGsYWkMr+s4zmyODhB+IwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwYjELMAkGA1UE BhMCWkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMT I1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBMB4XDTA4MDIxMzE1MTUxN1oX DTA5MDIxMjE1MTUxN1owbDEOMAwGA1UEBBMFTXVlbnoxEDAOBgNVBCoTB0dlcmhhcmQxFjAU BgNVBAMTDUdlcmhhcmQgTXVlbnoxMDAuBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWIW11ZW56QGluZm9ybWF0aWsu dW5pLXR1ZWJpbmdlbi5kZTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBAMZex/Sq sAxkzTVvKP/YAgkaeXA+ngH59Aa0bbRPsKOWzAndGqty5EKcEzrnKqEJ27qHFvoF/pHp88U2 7SJI/xbqkgWeV2jRaldipZQYlnjYLQcmb4cewIFuGRRSVrm3BquzX38aYazuE4+DVH2Z3a8z n0FcdMXhA1NR2Ma1rh4G7SIeZ+hC7czbvNRPraBliGdQhs8J/6yP/iL8aNYAl9c7CL4ofRj8 Y9orMOV/4vtWTq76/VQUVdbhUMiv0D8aHqI1ZvGskhRRvmITgQRVbbn8N8WTpZ0UCgMDjxPP 9i5IhLfp6oBtsKl4OZ0RXvSLZrbJTkBX3vnEutcyxDvyNgMCAwEAAaM+MDwwLAYDVR0RBCUw I4EhbXVlbnpAaW5mb3JtYXRpay51bmktdHVlYmluZ2VuLmRlMAwGA1UdEwEB/wQCMAAwDQYJ KoZIhvcNAQEFBQADgYEAX5SiD6epJePwBjJumOsTF6wzeuZRDLYlN+fOpXwd2C0Yx6i8iIZ9 l/J/nGaE1YpJPfX5oJDE+tOk1vYh2E9ThLOj9kJ3buZmgOCdVu90qtCWhfhli7RCYcJ+G9M3 FCnqbrzI/waPPXGB8/DY1HKgPj5G+oKPUK+GD2aE1Q3PYGowggMVMIICfqADAgECAhA/WhrG FpDK/rOM5sjg4QfiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUwIwYDVQQKExxU aGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZyAoUHR5KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwg RnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBDQTAeFw0wODAyMTMxNTE1MTdaFw0wOTAyMTIxNTE1MTdaMGwx DjAMBgNVBAQTBU11ZW56MRAwDgYDVQQqEwdHZXJoYXJkMRYwFAYDVQQDEw1HZXJoYXJkIE11 ZW56MTAwLgYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFiFtdWVuekBpbmZvcm1hdGlrLnVuaS10dWViaW5nZW4uZGUw ggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQDGXsf0qrAMZM01byj/2AIJGnlwPp4B +fQGtG20T7CjlswJ3RqrcuRCnBM65yqhCdu6hxb6Bf6R6fPFNu0iSP8W6pIFnldo0WpXYqWU GJZ42C0HJm+HHsCBbhkUUla5twars19/GmGs7hOPg1R9md2vM59BXHTF4QNTUdjGta4eBu0i HmfoQu3M27zUT62gZYhnUIbPCf+sj/4i/GjWAJfXOwi+KH0Y/GPaKzDlf+L7Vk6u+v1UFFXW 4VDIr9A/Gh6iNWbxrJIUUb5iE4EEVW25/DfFk6WdFAoDA48Tz/YuSIS36eqAbbCpeDmdEV70 i2a2yU5AV975xLrXMsQ78jYDAgMBAAGjPjA8MCwGA1UdEQQlMCOBIW11ZW56QGluZm9ybWF0 aWsudW5pLXR1ZWJpbmdlbi5kZTAMBgNVHRMBAf8EAjAAMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4GBAF+U og+nqSXj8AYybpjrExesM3rmUQy2JTfnzqV8HdgtGMeovIiGfZfyf5xmhNWKST31+aCQxPrT pNb2IdhPU4Szo/ZCd27mZoDgnVbvdKrQloX4ZYu0QmHCfhvTNxQp6m68yP8Gjz1xgfPw2NRy oD4+RvqCj1Cvhg9mhNUNz2BqMIIDPzCCAqigAwIBAgIBDTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADCB0TEL MAkGA1UEBhMCWkExFTATBgNVBAgTDFdlc3Rlcm4gQ2FwZTESMBAGA1UEBxMJQ2FwZSBUb3du MRowGAYDVQQKExFUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZzEoMCYGA1UECxMfQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBT ZXJ2aWNlcyBEaXZpc2lvbjEkMCIGA1UEAxMbVGhhd3RlIFBlcnNvbmFsIEZyZWVtYWlsIENB MSswKQYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhxwZXJzb25hbC1mcmVlbWFpbEB0aGF3dGUuY29tMB4XDTAzMDcx NzAwMDAwMFoXDTEzMDcxNjIzNTk1OVowYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0 ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVl bWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBMIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQDEpjxVc1X7TrnK mVoeaMB1BHCd3+n/ox7svc31W/Iadr1/DDph8r9RzgHU5VAKMNcCY1osiRVwjt3J8CuFWqo/ cVbLrzwLB+fxH5E2JCoTzyvV84J3PQO+K/67GD4Hv0CAAmTXp6a7n2XRxSpUhQ9IBH+nttE8 YQRAHmQZcmC3+wIDAQABo4GUMIGRMBIGA1UdEwEB/wQIMAYBAf8CAQAwQwYDVR0fBDwwOjA4 oDagNIYyaHR0cDovL2NybC50aGF3dGUuY29tL1RoYXd0ZVBlcnNvbmFsRnJlZW1haWxDQS5j cmwwCwYDVR0PBAQDAgEGMCkGA1UdEQQiMCCkHjAcMRowGAYDVQQDExFQcml2YXRlTGFiZWwy LTEzODANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOBgQBIjNFQg+oLLswNo2asZw9/r6y+whehQ5aUnX9MIbj4 Nh+qLZ82L8D0HFAgk3A8/a3hYWLD2ToZfoSxmRsAxRoLgnSeJVCUYsfbJ3FXJY3dqZw5jowg T2Vfldr394fWxghOrvbqNOUQGls1TXfjViF4gtwhGTXeJLHTHUb/XV9lTzGCA2QwggNgAgEB MHYwYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0 ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBAhA/WhrG FpDK/rOM5sjg4QfiMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggHDMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEw HAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTA4MDIyNTE2NTAyMVowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFPBcshGQZr4X hsHVnWhcESUu+oW8MFIGCSqGSIb3DQEJDzFFMEMwCgYIKoZIhvcNAwcwDgYIKoZIhvcNAwIC AgCAMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgFAMAcGBSsOAwIHMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgEoMIGFBgkrBgEEAYI3 EAQxeDB2MGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUwIwYDVQQKExxUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZyAoUHR5 KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwgRnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBDQQIQ P1oaxhaQyv6zjObI4OEH4jCBhwYLKoZIhvcNAQkQAgsxeKB2MGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUw IwYDVQQKExxUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZyAoUHR5KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUg UGVyc29uYWwgRnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBDQQIQP1oaxhaQyv6zjObI4OEH4jANBgkqhkiG 9w0BAQEFAASCAQA8stQU5+pgp7RbYgNLK/A4byR19NZWsfTFeK99AS8o7VyTkDpQosgNGwHE v169ApvdV/j/gGTaeWCgn4ZWFTWHAaJkJTGktVeAzF7nXkDmxngLZNF5nEbzZp6uOMDtfp9I 8bRUe3NNH3swfyN9sqOd6OGNfY3vyGGaYHDd6+zIvOrcJZId9BJRrPwtTY3aCvlrQvFYvacy PWFPdPXN0sf9HTK1NrE7fv7AcMjBssh2rZkpRhjKowNOOslzrytcok6YNT3TnvprSpbC6ECX QS9BaKfPKRqvSKePbQoAO0LSCMtGvKphOzLKetSB6Cgvnd7CzRbZ1eFw4IpYNn3z/jIfAAAA AAAA --------------ms040809030600050507080303-- --===============0494723802== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix --===============0494723802==-- 4X hsHVnWhcESUu+oW8MFIGCSqGSIb3DQEJDzFFMEMwCgYIKoZIhvcNAwcwDgYIKoZIhvcNAwIC AgCAMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgFAMAcGBSsOAwIHMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgEoMIGFBgkrBgEEAYI3 EAQxeDB2MGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUwIwYDVQQKExxUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZyAoUHR5 KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwgRnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBDQQIQ P1oaxhaQyv6zjObI4OEH4jCBhwYLKoZIhvcNAQkQAgsxeKB2MGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUw IwYDVQQKExxUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZyAoUHR5KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUg UGVyc29uYWwgRnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBDQQIQP1oaxhaQyv6zjObI4OEH4jANBgkqhkiG 9w0BAQEFAASCAQA8stQU5+pgp7RbYgNLK/A4byR19NZWsfTFeK99AS8o7VyTkDpQosgNGwHE v169ApvdV/j/gGTaeWCgn4ZWFTWHAaJkJTGktVeAzF7nXkDmxngLZNF5nEbzZp6uOMDtfp9I 8bRUe3NNH3swfyN9sqOd6OGNfY3vyGGaYHDd6+zIvOrcJZId9BJRrPwtTY3aCvlrQvFYvacy PWFPdPXN0sf9HTK1NrE7fv7AcMjBssh2rZkpRhjKowNOOslzrytcok6YNT3TnvprSpbC6ECX QS9BaKfPKRqvSKePbQoAO0LSCMtGvKphOzLKetSB6Cgvnd7CzRbZ1eFw4IpYNn3z/jIfAAAA AAAA --------------ms040809030600050507080303-- --===============0494723802== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix --===============0494723802==-- From salle9kell63@fujitsu.com Mon Feb 25 22:51:20 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF2533A6C33 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 22:51:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.38 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.38 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DOS_OE_TO_MX=2.75, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, GB_ROLEX=5, HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP=1.398, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, LOW_PRICE=0.001, PRICES_ARE_AFFORDABLE=0.001, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX=1.666, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wSyEtvfx4OfM for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 22:51:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from adsl-76-231-54-78.dsl.kntpin.sbcglobal.net (adsl-76-231-54-78.dsl.kntpin.sbcglobal.net [76.231.54.78]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB14D3A6984 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 22:51:19 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000701c87844$079d4089$2ad05eae@ntgex> From: "grenville coulson" To: "Mervin Erwin" Subject: exclusive watches, affordable prices rolex Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 05:08:14 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Discover Our Range of Luxury Rolex Watches for Men and Women... Incredibly Low Prices! http://repfuturedirts.com/ From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 26 01:54:37 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7A3F3A6C4C; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 01:54:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.915 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.915 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.478, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GuCLz3TzPfsV; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 01:54:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6BED3A6BF8; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 01:54:35 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C86593A6BA3 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 01:54:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wmDVRnINW4Kb for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 01:54:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.nttv6.net (mail.nttv6.net [IPv6:2001:fa8::25]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F7B33A6B56 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 01:54:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dhcp-3-141.nttv6.com [192.47.163.141]) by mail.nttv6.net (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m1Q9sFAr039599 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:54:26 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from akoba@nttv6.net) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:54:15 +0900 From: kobayashi atsushi To: ipfix@ietf.org Message-Id: <20080226182705.95B2.AKOBA@nttv6.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.30.02 [ja] X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (mail.nttv6.net [192.16.178.5]); Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:54:26 +0900 (JST) Subject: [IPFIX] New version problems with IPFIX Mediation X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Dear all, I submitted new version of problems with IPFIX Mediation draft. For some reasons, it has not been announced on I-D announce mailing list, but you can see the following web site. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kobayashi-ipfix-large-ps-01 This version focuses more description on the problems with using IPFIX Mediator. We wrote up it according to feedback from last meeting discussion and several comments. Could you please read through it before next meeting. Your comments welcome. Regards, Atsushi KOBAYASHI --- Atsushi KOBAYASHI NTT Information Sharing Platform Lab. tel:+81-(0)422-59-3978 fax:+81-(0)422-59-5637 _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 26 01:54:37 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7A3F3A6C4C; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 01:54:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.915 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.915 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.478, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GuCLz3TzPfsV; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 01:54:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6BED3A6BF8; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 01:54:35 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C86593A6BA3 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 01:54:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wmDVRnINW4Kb for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 01:54:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.nttv6.net (mail.nttv6.net [IPv6:2001:fa8::25]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F7B33A6B56 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 01:54:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dhcp-3-141.nttv6.com [192.47.163.141]) by mail.nttv6.net (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m1Q9sFAr039599 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:54:26 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from akoba@nttv6.net) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:54:15 +0900 From: kobayashi atsushi To: ipfix@ietf.org Message-Id: <20080226182705.95B2.AKOBA@nttv6.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.30.02 [ja] X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (mail.nttv6.net [192.16.178.5]); Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:54:26 +0900 (JST) Subject: [IPFIX] New version problems with IPFIX Mediation X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Dear all, I submitted new version of problems with IPFIX Mediation draft. For some reasons, it has not been announced on I-D announce mailing list, but you can see the following web site. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kobayashi-ipfix-large-ps-01 This version focuses more description on the problems with using IPFIX Mediator. We wrote up it according to feedback from last meeting discussion and several comments. Could you please read through it before next meeting. Your comments welcome. Regards, Atsushi KOBAYASHI --- Atsushi KOBAYASHI NTT Information Sharing Platform Lab. tel:+81-(0)422-59-3978 fax:+81-(0)422-59-5637 _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 27 23:31:01 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B02813A69EA; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:31:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.219 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.218, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q4NWNrMdpM6O; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:30:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC5B43A691D; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:30:56 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32EB83A6948 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:30:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zCBYUj7JNQXK for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:30:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from tama50.ecl.ntt.co.jp (tama50.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.39.147]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ED743A691D for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:30:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from mfs5.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (mfs5.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.39.144]) by tama50.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m1S7UljH013948 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:30:47 +0900 (JST) Received: from mfs5.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mfs5.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCA2163EE for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:30:47 +0900 (JST) Received: from eclscan2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (eclscan2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.5.68]) by mfs5.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id D606263ED for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:30:47 +0900 (JST) Received: from eclscan2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eclscan2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1S7UlGV003413 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:30:47 +0900 (JST) Received: from imm.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (imm0.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.5.151]) by eclscan2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1S7Ultf003408 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:30:47 +0900 (JST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([129.60.80.56]) by imm.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1S7Uk38005968 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:30:46 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <47C66316.7070605@lab.ntt.co.jp> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:30:30 +0900 From: Hitoshi Irino Organization: NTT User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ipfix@ietf.org Subject: [IPFIX] New version of Order of Information Elements draft X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Dear all, I submitted new version of Order of Information Elements draft. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irino-ipfix-ie-order-04.txt I described some example of effective usages written in section 5 of this draft. Could anyone read this draft and give me comments? Regards, Hitoshi Irino -- Hitoshi Irino NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories 9-11 Midori-cho 3-Chome, Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585 Japan Tel: +81-422-59-4403 Fax: +81-422-59-4549 _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 27 23:31:01 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B02813A69EA; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:31:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.219 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.218, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q4NWNrMdpM6O; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:30:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC5B43A691D; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:30:56 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32EB83A6948 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:30:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zCBYUj7JNQXK for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:30:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from tama50.ecl.ntt.co.jp (tama50.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.39.147]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ED743A691D for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:30:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from mfs5.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (mfs5.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.39.144]) by tama50.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m1S7UljH013948 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:30:47 +0900 (JST) Received: from mfs5.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mfs5.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCA2163EE for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:30:47 +0900 (JST) Received: from eclscan2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (eclscan2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.5.68]) by mfs5.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id D606263ED for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:30:47 +0900 (JST) Received: from eclscan2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eclscan2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1S7UlGV003413 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:30:47 +0900 (JST) Received: from imm.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (imm0.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.5.151]) by eclscan2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1S7Ultf003408 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:30:47 +0900 (JST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([129.60.80.56]) by imm.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1S7Uk38005968 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:30:46 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <47C66316.7070605@lab.ntt.co.jp> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:30:30 +0900 From: Hitoshi Irino Organization: NTT User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ipfix@ietf.org Subject: [IPFIX] New version of Order of Information Elements draft X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Dear all, I submitted new version of Order of Information Elements draft. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irino-ipfix-ie-order-04.txt I described some example of effective usages written in section 5 of this draft. Could anyone read this draft and give me comments? Regards, Hitoshi Irino -- Hitoshi Irino NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories 9-11 Midori-cho 3-Chome, Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585 Japan Tel: +81-422-59-4403 Fax: +81-422-59-4549 _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 28 00:34:34 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E040928C1E6; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:34:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.247 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.247 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.190, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s2bJvfs5xKhe; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:34:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C7043A6A96; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:34:34 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B31143A6A96 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:34:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cKgs118ILEmA for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:34:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (odd-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.119]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F05803A6A94 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:34:27 -0800 (PST) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id m1S8YKi03206 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:34:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.61.65.100] (ams3-vpn-dhcp356.cisco.com [10.61.65.100]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id m1S8YKB21560 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:34:20 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47C6720A.8050905@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:34:18 +0100 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Windows/20070509) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "ipfix@ietf.org" Subject: [IPFIX] New version of the IPFIX Export per SCTP Stream X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Dear all, http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ipfix/draft-claise-ipfix-export-per-sctp-stream-03.txt has been posted. It addressed the issue discussed in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipfix/current/msg04243.html The specifications are now in line with what Gerhard and Brian proposed. Please review the draft before the IETF meeting. Regards, Benoit. _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix From ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 28 00:34:34 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipfix-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E040928C1E6; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:34:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.247 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.247 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.190, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s2bJvfs5xKhe; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:34:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C7043A6A96; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:34:34 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B31143A6A96 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:34:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cKgs118ILEmA for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:34:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (odd-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.119]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F05803A6A94 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:34:27 -0800 (PST) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id m1S8YKi03206 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:34:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.61.65.100] (ams3-vpn-dhcp356.cisco.com [10.61.65.100]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id m1S8YKB21560 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:34:20 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47C6720A.8050905@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:34:18 +0100 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Windows/20070509) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "ipfix@ietf.org" Subject: [IPFIX] New version of the IPFIX Export per SCTP Stream X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org Dear all, http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ipfix/draft-claise-ipfix-export-per-sctp-stream-03.txt has been posted. It addressed the issue discussed in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipfix/current/msg04243.html The specifications are now in line with what Gerhard and Brian proposed. Please review the draft before the IETF meeting. Regards, Benoit. _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix