IPFIX Requirements: Document Changes and New Issues Raised Jürgen Quittek, NEC Benoit Claise, Cisco Tanja Zseby, Sebstian Zander, FhG FOKUS.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Draft-ietf-mptcp-api-01 Michael Scharf, Alan Ford March 31, 2011.
Advertisements

Geneva, 24 March 2011 Cisco experiences of IP traffic flow measurement and billing with NetFlow Benoit Claise, Distinguished Engineer, Cisco ITU-T Workshop.
Overview of IETF work on IP traffic flow measurement and current developments Dr. Jürgen Quittek General Manager Network Research Division, NEC Europe.
Deployment Considerations for Dual-stack Lite IETF 80 Prague Yiu Lee, Roberta Magione, Carl Williams, Christian Jacquenet Mohamed Boucadair.
CS 457 – Lecture 16 Global Internet - BGP Spring 2012.
1 Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, nature calls a butterfly. - Anonymous.
Network Layer IPv6 Slides were original prepared by Dr. Tatsuya Suda.
Evaluation of Header Field Entropy for Hash-Based Packet Selection Evaluation of Header Field Entropy for Hash-Based Packet Selection Christian Henke,
Policy-based Accounting Draft Update Tanja Zseby, Sebastian Zander Fraunhofer Institute FOKUS Competence Center for Global Networking (GloNe) [zseby,
IPv4-Embedded IPv6 Multicast Address draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format IETF 84 Vancouver 1.
Company Confidential 1 © 2005 Nokia V1-Filename.ppt / yyyy-mm-dd / Initials Modification Proposals to Current TURN Spec Mikael Latvala.
1 PSAMP Protocol Specifications IPFIX IETF-64 November 10th, 2005 Benoit Claise Juergen Quittek Andrew Johnson.
Draft-molina-flow-selection-00 Maurizio Molina,. 2 © NEC Europe Ltd., 2002 Network Laboratories, Heidelberg Motivation, Background (1/2) Flow selection.
Fraunhofer FOKUSCompetence Center NET T. Zseby, CC NET1 IPFIX – IP Flow Information Export Overview Tanja Zseby Fraunhofer FOKUS, Network Research.
WG RAQMON Internet-Drafts RMON MIB WG Meeting Washington, Nov. 11, 2004.
Dean Cheng Jouni Korhonen Mehamed Boucadair
1 IPFIX Protocol Specifications IPFIX IETF-59 March 3, 2004 Benoit Claise Mark Fullmer Reinaldo Penno Paul Calato Stewart Bryant Ganesh Sadasivan.
Power and Energy Monitoring MIB draft-ietf-eman-energy-monitoring-mib-01 Mouli Chandramouli, B. Schoening Juergen Quittek Thomas Dietz Benoit Claise 82th.
Jun Li DHCP Option for Access Network Information draft-lijun-dhc-clf-nass-option-01.
Real-time Flow Management 2 BOF: Remote Packet Capture Extensions Jürgen Quittek NEC Europe Ltd, Heidelberg, Germany Georg Carle GMD.
1 RFC Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE Networks Speaker: Li-Wen Chen Date:
IPv6 WORKING GROUP March 2002 Minneapolis IETF Bob Hinden / Nokia Steve Deering / Cisco Systems Co-Chairs.
1 Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) San Francisco IETF VRRP Working Group March 2003 San Francisco IETF Mukesh Gupta / Nokia Chair.
BAI513 - PROTOCOLS ARP BAIST – Network Management.
Advanced Roaming & Mobility Scenarios in IPv6 Rafal Lukawiecki Strategic Consultant & Director Project Botticelli Ltd in.
1 Requirements for Internet Routers (Gateways) and Hosts Relates to Lab 3. (Supplement) Covers the compliance requirements of Internet routers and hosts.
Draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-02 1 FEC framework Configuration Signaling draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-02.txt IETF 76 Rajiv Asati.
1 PSAMP Protocol Specifications PSAMP IETF-59 March 2, 2004 Benoit Claise Juergen Quittek.
Net Flow Network Protocol Presented By : Arslan Qamar.
Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet Selection - Update - draft-ietf-psamp-sample-tech-02.txt Tanja Zseby, FhG FOKUS Maurizio Molina, NEC Europe.
IPv6 WORKING GROUP (IPNGWG) December 2000 San Diego IETF Bob Hinden / Nokia Steve Deering / Cisco Systems Co-Chairs.
Draft-melia-mipshop-mobility-services-ps-01.txt. From IETF #66 Discuss MIH PS (as expressed by the WG chair) Need a single PS at WG level (several drafts.
July 2007 CAPWAP Protocol Specification Editors' Report July 2007
1 Review – The Internet’s Protocol Architecture. Protocols, Internetworking & the Internet 2 Introduction Internet standards Internet standards Layered.
1 IPFIX Default Transport IPFIX IETF-58 November 10, 2003 Stewart Bryant Benoit Claise.
1 PSAMP Protocol Specifications PSAMP IETF-58 November 11, 2003 Benoit Claise Juergen Quittek.
IPFIX MIB Status Managed Object for IP Flow Export A Status Report Thomas Dietz Atsushi Kobayashi
Chapter 3 TCP and IP 1 Chapter 3 TCP and IP. Chapter 3 TCP and IP 2 Introduction Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) User Datagram Protocol (UDP) Internet.
IPFIX Protocol Draft Benoit Claise, Cisco Systems Mark Fullmer, OARnet Reinaldo Penno, Nortel Networks Paul Calato, Riverstone Networks.
1 IETF-70 draft-akhter-bmwg-mpls-meth MPLS Benchmarking Methodology draft-akhter-bmwg-mpls-meth-03 IETF 70 Aamer Akhter / Rajiv Asati /
Traceroute Storage Format and Metrics draft-niccolini-ippm-storetraceroutes-03 Saverio Niccolini, Sandra Tartarelli, Juergen Quittek Network Laboratories,
1 PSAMP WGIETF, November 2003PSAMP WG PSAMP Framework Document draft-ietf-psamp-framework-04.txt Duffield, Greenberg, Grossglauser, Rexford: AT&T Chiou:
Flow sampling in IPFIX: Status and suggestion for its support Maurizio Molina,
7/24/2007IETF69 PANA WG1 PANA Issues and Resolutions draft-ietf-pana-pana-17.txt draft-ietf-pana-framework-09.txt Yoshihiro Ohba Alper Yegin.
Guidelines for IPFIX Implementations on Middleboxes Juergen Quittek, Martin Stiemerling 59th IETF meeting, IPFIX WG.
IPv4 over IP CS Soohong Daniel Park Syam Madanapalli.
NACK-Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM) Update
IP Flow Information eXport (IPFIX)
Chapter 9: Transport Layer
Chapter 3 TCP and IP Chapter 3 TCP and IP.
IPFIX Protocol Specifications IPFIX IETF-62 March 12th, Benoit Claise Stewart Bryant
Transport Protocols Relates to Lab 5. An overview of the transport protocols of the TCP/IP protocol suite. Also, a short discussion of UDP.
PANA Issues and Resolutions
GRE-in-UDP Encapsulation
IPv6 Flow Label Specification
Seminar report on IPv4 & IPv6
IPFIX Requirements: Document Changes from Version -07 to Version -09
PSAMP MIB Status: Document Changes
IPv4 Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 Ryuji Wakikawa & Sri Gundavelli
Guide to TCP/IP Fourth Edition
Signaled PID When Multiplexing Multiple Payloads over RSVP-TE LSPs draft-ali-mpls-sig-pid-multiplexing-case-00.txt Zafar Ali, Cisco Systems.
draft-ipdvb-sec-01.txt ULE Security Requirements
IETF YANG Routing Types Update
Review of Internet Protocols Network Layer
Transport Protocols Relates to Lab 5. An overview of the transport protocols of the TCP/IP protocol suite. Also, a short discussion of UDP.
Editors: Bala’zs Varga, Jouni Korhonen
Parag Jain, Samer Salam, Ali Sajassi (Cisco),
O&M Area Working Group WG
YANG Data Models for TE and RSVP draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-21 draft-ietf-teas-yang-rsvp-11 draft-ietf-teas-yang-rsvp-te-07 Tarek Saad, Juniper Networks Rakesh.
YANG Data Models for TE and RSVP draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-21 draft-ietf-teas-yang-rsvp-11 draft-ietf-teas-yang-rsvp-te-07 Tarek Saad, Juniper Networks Rakesh.
Presentation transcript:

IPFIX Requirements: Document Changes and New Issues Raised Jürgen Quittek, NEC Benoit Claise, Cisco Tanja Zseby, Sebstian Zander, FhG FOKUS

2 © NEC Europe Ltd., 2002 Network Laboratories, Heidelberg Recent History WG last call before IETF56 -> version -09 received comments from IESG reviewers in April updated draft in June (version -10) since then –received additional comments from IESG –received feedback on our changes from IESG

3 © NEC Europe Ltd., 2002 Network Laboratories, Heidelberg Document Changes from -09 to timestamp resolution reference 2. reporting TOS/traffic class octet or reporting DSCP DHCP part of TOS/traffic class octet 3. location of reference to RFC bad wording in section 6.3.3, last paragraph 5. describe potential problem of faked DoS attack 6. location of appendix 7. consistency of appendix 17 changes

4 © NEC Europe Ltd., 2002 Network Laboratories, Heidelberg Document Changes from -09 to More concrete definition of byte counter number of bytes of IP header and IP payload 9. More concrete definition of multicast replication factor At the time of reporting 10. More concrete definition of BGP-related attributes: BGP source, destination, next-hop AS number 11. Address the reliability issue of usage based accounting 12. & 13. Confidentiality from SHOULD to MUST & Anonymization from MAY to MUST MUST be covered by the IPFIX protocol specification The protocol specification may declare the feature as MUST, SHOULD or MAY for implementations 14. Move paragraph on remote configuration up (out of section 7.2)

5 © NEC Europe Ltd., 2002 Network Laboratories, Heidelberg Responses Allison Mankin on Confidentiality and Anonymization: „The document still leaves it the case that ipfix implementations will generally have a strong option not to implement anonymization, and will have some choice not to implement confidentiality. These are not mandatory-to-use, but the requirements should be indicating they are recommended or mandatory-to-implement.“ What is the working group‘s position?

6 © NEC Europe Ltd., 2002 Network Laboratories, Heidelberg Further Comments Steve Bellovin –4.2(4) What about link-layer distinguisher of IP version? –4.3 What about SCTP? –4.4, 4.5, and others: This document can't say "If the observation point is located at a foo". At most, it can say "a foo-capable box MUST" or "a box SHOULD do such-and- such so that it can be located at a foo". –4.6 strikes me as dubious for compression. –What about the IPv6 Flow Label as a flow separator? Randy Presuhn –20 editorial comments

7 © NEC Europe Ltd., 2002 Network Laboratories, Heidelberg What about link-layer distinguisher of IP version? 4.2. IP Header Fields The metering process MUST, SHOULD, or MAY be able to separate flows by the following fields of the IP header as indicated. 1. source IP address (MUST) 2. destination IP address (MUST) 3. protocol type (TCP,UDP,ICMP,...) (MUST) 4. IP version number (SHOULD) This requirement only applies if the observation point is located at a device that is supporting more than IP version. For source address and destination address, separating by full match MUST be supported as well as separation by prefix match.

8 © NEC Europe Ltd., 2002 Network Laboratories, Heidelberg What about SCTP? 4.3. Transport Header Fields The metering process MUST be able to separate flows by the port numbers of the transport header in case of TCP or UDP being used as transport protocol. Both, source and destination port number MUST be supported for distinguishing flows, individually as well as in combination. Suggestion: add a SHOULD clause on SCTP

9 © NEC Europe Ltd., 2002 Network Laboratories, Heidelberg Dubious for compression 4.6. Header Compression and Encryption If header compression or encryption is used, the metering process might not be able to access all header fields. A metering process MUST meet the requirements stated in this section 4 only for packets that have the relevant header fields not compressed and not encrypted. Suggestion: remove header compression

10 © NEC Europe Ltd., 2002 Network Laboratories, Heidelberg What about the IPv6 Flow Label as a flow separator? Suggestions: (1) add a MAY clause or (2) ignore If we choose (1) we also can add a lot of other attributes in MAY clauses...

11 © NEC Europe Ltd., 2002 Network Laboratories, Heidelberg Next Steps Agree on changes Submit version -11 in August Do we need another last call?

Thank You!