Hi Jan,
Here are a few comments on your draft.
- In the active and inactive timeout, I would express in terms of flow
expiration.
You refer to draft-ietf-ipfix-architecture-12.txt section 5.1.1., good!
However, why not revert the definition?
For inactive timeout, something such as:
if no packet of the flow has been seen for the inactive
timeout, then the flow is expired.
- While you speak about:
The network operator concern is always twofold:
a. what will be CPU usage
b. what will be the forwarding performance
I would add:
c. bandwidth
- As I mentioned during the PMOL meeting, maybe we want to give a warning about generated traffic:
if we use increasing IP addresses, then we might have more hash collisions than in real live cases
The next point is: do we want to have a metric for the hash collisions?
- Sometimes, I'm confused by too many new acronyms. Maybe it's just me...
"the BPU of the CPU does contain the FMPU on the UT" seems like
we're talking an expert cryptic language ;-)
Now, I understand that the UT is a common term in BMWG
Regards, Benoit.