Subject: [ipfix] data-model doc: uni-/bi-directional flows

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 15:40:50 +0200

Hi all,

I have a comment on section 4.2 of the data model document:

 4.2. Unidirectional and Bidirectional Flows

   A flow defined by the above terms is unidirectional. In case the
   exporter has got the knowledge of the bi-directional flows and in
   case the bi-directional information make sense, the exporter MAY
   choose to export in the same Template/Flow Record, along with
   bidirectional accounting information. This would save some
   bandwidth as the exporter won't have to send two unidirectional
   flow records.

I think the first sentence is wrong. I cannot see why our flow
defintion does imply a flow to be uni-directional. All examples
given in the data-model document are uni-directional flows, but
this does not say the defintion excludes bi-directional ones.

Can anyone explain me, why our flows are uni-directional?

    Juergen
-- 
Juergen Quittek     [email-masked]     Tel: +49 6221 90511-15
NEC Europe Ltd.,    Network Laboratories     Fax: +49 6221 90511-55
Adenauerplatz 6, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany   http://www.ccrle.nec.de

--
Help        mailto:[email-masked] and say "help" in message body
Unsubscribe mailto:[email-masked] and say
"unsubscribe ipfix" in message body
Archive     http://ipfix.doit.wisc.edu/archive/

---

From: Ganesh Sadasivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 10:58:49 -0800

Jurgene,
  I agree with you. "A flow defined by the above terms
  MAY be unidirectional or bidirectional".
 But still we need a defintion for bi-directional flows as
 in section 4.2 - don't we?
Thanks
Ganesh

---

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 01:05:28 +0200

Ganesh,

I agree. We should provide a definition of uni-directional
and bi-directional flows.

However, I would prefer to discuss these essential terms
in the architecture document rather than in the document
describing the information model of the IPFIX protocol.

    Juergen

---

From: Ganesh Sadasivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 15:08:44 -0800

Jurgene,
No disagreements here. What we can do is to pull in all these
into the terminology section of arch. spec.
Ganesh