Hi Xiao, All, We have just uploaded the new revision of draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark and we added some text to clarify the point you raised about the LAG interface.
Regards, Giuseppe From: xiao.m...@zte.com.cn <xiao.m...@zte.com.cn> Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2024 12:19 PM To: thomas.g...@swisscom.com Cc: draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-m...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00 Got it. Thank you Thomas! If some text can be added to clarify this usage of ingressInterface/egressInterface and ingressPhysicalInterface/egressPhysicalInterface, that would help the implementer. Cheers, Xiao Min Original From: thomas.g...@swisscom.com<mailto:thomas.g...@swisscom.com> <thomas.g...@swisscom.com<mailto:thomas.g...@swisscom.com>> To: 肖敏10093570; Cc: draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-m...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-m...@ietf.org> <draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-m...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-m...@ietf.org>>;opsawg@ietf.org <opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>>;i...@ietf.org <i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>>; Date: 2024年04月03日 11:41 Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00 Dear Xiao, Correct. Obviously this will be exported per flow and the interface entities have to be key fields as the flow entities as well. Best wishes Thomas On 3 Apr 2024, at 04:54, xiao.m...@zte.com.cn<mailto:xiao.m...@zte.com.cn> wrote: Be aware: This is an external email. Correcting the email address i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>. Hi Thomas, If I understand you correctly, you mean the IE exporter can use ingressInterface/egressInterface to indicate LAG port and ingressPhysicalInterface/egressPhysicalInterface to indicate LAG member port, so the receiver can deduce the implicit meanings of them if they have different values, is that right? Cheers, Xiao Min From: thomas.g...@swisscom.com<mailto:thomas.g...@swisscom.com> <thomas.g...@swisscom.com<mailto:thomas.g...@swisscom.com>> To: 肖敏10093570;draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-m...@ietf.org <draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-m...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-m...@ietf.org>>; Cc: opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org> <opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>>;'i...@ietf.org <'i...@ietf.org>; Date: 2024年04月02日 19:32 Subject: RE: [OPSAWG] draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00 Dear Xiao, I agree that the description and the additional information does not provide information to distinguish between ingressInterface, egressInterface and ingressPhysicalInterface, egressPhysicalInterface However from an implementation perspective I have observed that in all cases ingressInterface and egressInterface refer to logical and ingressPhysicalInterface and egressPhysicalInterface to physical interfaces. Where ingressInterfaceType and egressInterfaceType, which references to https://www.iana.org/assignments/ianaiftype-mib/ianaiftype-mib, is describing what type of interface it is. I would expect in a LAG configuration that the lag interface is ingressInterface resp. egressInterface and the member interfaces are ingressPhysicalInterface resp. egressPhysicalInterface. I hope that helps. Best wishes Thomas From: OPSAWG <opsawg-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of xiao.m...@zte.com.cn<mailto:xiao.m...@zte.com.cn> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 10:58 AM To: draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-m...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-m...@ietf.org> Cc: opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>; 'i...@ietf.org Subject: [OPSAWG] draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00 Be aware: This is an external email. Hi authors, At the request of Giuseppe, I had a read on draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00. There are IPFIX IEs ingressInterface, egressInterface, ingressPhysicalInterface and egressPhysicalInterface, is there an IE indicating a LAG interface? Best Regards, Xiao Min
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
