Subject: RE: [ipfix] Forming consensus on IPFIX default protocol

From: "MEYER,JEFFREY D (HP-Cupertino,ex1)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:09:58 -0500

Nevil,

  I guess I haven't heard anyone other than Cisco strongly supporting SCTP,
but
then again that was my impression for NFv9 vs. the other candidates.  I
guess
will just sit back and let John Chambers do the driving...

-- Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: majordomo listserver [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf
Of Nevil Brownlee
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 3:34 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ipfix] Forming consensus on IPFIX default protocol

Hi Carter, Tal and Jeff:

> I saw in Dave's note that there wasn't a consensus on the default
transport
> protocol. What you say below contradicts those minutes.

What I said in my last note (subject 'Draft minutes') was that
 - in introducing the 'transport' discussion at the meeting we said
   that there wasn't a clear consensus on the list, but that there
   seemed to be rough consensus for TCP.
 - at the meeting there was clear consensus for SCTP, and no-one stood
   up to speak strongly against it.  Hence the minutes say that the
   meeting consensus was SCTP.
Thus, there was no contradiction.

Furthermore, in this discussion, 'default' means 'mandatory to implement,'
as we reported very clearly in the draft minutes.

The situation now is that we have a rather small number of people with
strongly-expressed opinions, which - it seems to me - is diverting energy
away from getting the drafts completed.  It's high time we concentrated
on doing that, and most of the work needed on the drafts doesn't depend
on our choice of transport protocol.  So please, let's get on with that.

We also said that we'd push the consensus discussion back to the mailing
list for further discussion.  At this stage my own view is that although
TCP is ubiquitous, SCTP has useful technical advantages.  Now I'd like
to hear constructive suggestions to help build consensus, from a wider
range of IPFIX WG participants.  For instance, can anyone report on
implementation experience with IPFIX, or IPFIX-like applications using SCTP?

Cheers, Nevil

PS: In an effort to help everyone focus on getting the drafts completed,
    I think we need to get some better tracking procedures in place.  
    I'm writing a short note about that, which I'll post to the list 
    real soon now.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Nevil Brownlee                   Director, Technology Development
   Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x88941     ITSS, The University of Auckland
   FAX: +64 9 373 7021      Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through University of Auckland
http://www.auckland.ac.nz/

--
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/

--
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: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:53:14 -0500

Sorry I've been absent for some time. I'll have
sporadic posts at best.

In any case, my 2 cents on this issue is TCP should
be the default. I assume default means that all 
implementations will have it. From a practical standpoint
TCP is widely available, inter operable, is well understood,
has tools available, etc...It has drawbacks but I believe
it would help greatly in getting things off the ground
in terms of multiple vendors and applications working 
together "out of the box". I think SCTP as the default
would just throw up an unnecessary roadblock on the road
to implementation.

Then SCTP can be an extra for those vendors and applications 
that want to take advantage of any technical  advantages 
that Nevil mentioned.

Paul

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:34:19 -0700

I saw lots of folks raise their hand when the "How many
folks would like to see SCTP be the default" (~twice as many
as opposed to TCP) question was asked and a great number
of those were NOT Cisco employees -- not that it's even a
relevant argument here as we're all individuals!

I've never liked the hand-raising thing much anyways, and
I'd prefer "humming" or nothing at all in the meeting, but
nonetheless...

As a large consumer of flow information in my day job, I
suspect UDP will be all that matters in the near term (for
a number of presumably obvious reasons), and when folks are
ready to make a change SCTP does have some appealing
attributes.

And of course, you're always welcome to implement anything
you'd like...

-danny