Dear Thomas,
Thanks a lot for your comments and suggestions.
I've updated this draft accordingly
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-liu-opsawg-ipfix-muti-layer-02.html. In
v-02，option 3 has been listed as the solution when the information of all
layers are being exported and updates to RFC70111 has been added as well.
Best Regards,
Yao
Original
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
<[email protected]>;
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>;
Date: 2026年03月18日 15:23
Subject: draft-liu-opsawg-ipfix-muti-layer-01
Dear Yao and Taoran,
I was reviewing draft-liu-opsawg-ipfix-muti-layer-01 and looking at your
representation
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/125/materials/slides-125-opsawg-7-export-of-encapsulation-layer-information-in-ipfix-00.
I noticed the questions raised in slides 3-5.
I resonate by having both, option 1 and option 3 described in slide 3 and 5. I
From an operator and implementor point of view, I am aware of many IPFIX
implementations where the following principle was applied
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7011#section-8
If an Information Element is required more than once in a Template,
the different occurrences of this Information Element SHOULD follow
the logical order of their treatments by the Metering Process.
I agree with the authors that the SHOULD, should be a MUST.
I believe option 1 should be used if IPFIX entities not from all network layers
are reported but the metering process is aware of the non-reported layers.
Best wishes
Thomas
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
