Subject: [ipfix-info] draft-ietf-ipfix-info-01 issue: ingressPort/egressPort

From: Simon Leinen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 22:24:04 +0200

The types for the "ingressPort" and "egressPort" fields is specified
as unsignedShort (0...65535).  But ifIndex values can have a range of
1...2147483647 (see the InterfaceIndex textual convention in RFC
2863, which obsoletes RFC 2233).

Also, I would prefer to use names with "interface" for these fields,
because (1) we already have the sourcePort/destinationPort fields,
which refer to transport-level ports, and (2) in this context, "port"
could tempt people to think of physical ports, where a logical
"sub-layer" interface may be more suitable.

In addition, I suggest using the special value of zero for the case
where a flow's packets weren't forwarded at all.

[We could also use this value for the multicast case... or use
negative values to specify the "replication factor" if we don't mind
the overloading - I think overloading is good because it saves
valuable space, but maybe one would use a different template for
multicast flows anyway.]

Suggested text changes:

6.8 (IngressPort), and
6.9 (EgressPort)

Replace with:

    6.8 IngressInterface
    
    Description: The ifIndex of the interface on which the packets for the
    flow have been received.  IfIndex is defined by RFC 2863.
    
    Type: The IngressInterface element is of type int.
    
    FieldId: 10
    
    6.9 EgressInterface
    
    Description: The ifIndex of the interface to which the packets for the
    flow have been forwarded, or zero if no packets of the flow were
    forwarded to an interface.  IfIndex is defined by RFC 2863.
    
    Type: The EgressInterface element is of type int.
    
    FieldId: 11
-- 
Simon.

--
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/