idnits 2.17.1 draft-trammell-ipfix-set9hack-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (July 26, 2010) is 5023 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3954 Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 IPFIX Working Group B. Trammell 3 Internet-Draft ETH Zurich 4 Intended status: Standards Track July 26, 2010 5 Expires: January 27, 2011 7 Reserved Set IDs to Enable Boundary Finding in Mixed IPFIX Files 8 draft-trammell-ipfix-set9hack-00.txt 10 Abstract 12 This document reserves the IPFIX Set IDs 9 and 10 to prevent them 13 from being allocated in the future. The reason behind this is to 14 ensure that heuristic methods for determining PDU boundaries in files 15 containing NetFlow V9 PDUs and IPFIX Messages work in a standards- 16 compliant way. 18 Status of this Memo 20 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 21 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 23 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 24 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 25 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 26 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 28 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 29 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 30 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 31 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 33 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 27, 2011. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 38 document authors. All rights reserved. 40 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 41 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 42 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 43 publication of this document. Please review these documents 44 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 45 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 46 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 47 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 48 described in the Simplified BSD License. 50 1. Rationale 52 Although Cisco NetFlow V9 [RFC3954] was never designed to be used as 53 a storage format, and [RFC5655] defines a simple method for storing 54 NetFlow V9 data in IPFIX Files, serialized files containing NetFlow 55 V9 PDUs are nevertheless in use for storage. NetFlow V9, unlike 56 IPFIX, counts records as opposed to bytes in its Packet Header and as 57 such does not provide a simple method for finding the boundaries of a 58 Packet in a serialized stream. A reader searching for the next 59 NetFlow V9 Packet in a file must either parse the entire Message and 60 count records to match with the V9 Count header, or simply skip sets 61 and assume that a "Set ID" of 9 is actually a NetFlow V9 Packet 62 Header Version field, and that the "Set Header" in this case is 63 actually a Packet Header. 65 This works because Cisco NetFlow V9 will never export a Set with a 66 Set ID of 9. However, if a file contains mixed NetFlow V9 and IPFIX 67 messages, the fact that IPFIX could allocate a set ID of 9 for future 68 use would cause any reader using this method to fail. Reserving Set 69 ID 9 to keep it from being allocated in the future would solve this 70 problem. Similarly, Set ID 10 could be used to recognize IPFIX 71 Messages in a file containing a mix of NetFlow V9 and IPFIX data. 73 "Future use" Set IDs (4-255) are not a particularly scarce resource, 74 considering they require non-interoperable changes to the protocol to 75 implement; therefore, reserving two to prevent future allocation 76 presents no serious problem. 78 2. IANA Considerations 80 IANA has added two entries to the IPFIX Set ID registry: Set ID 9 is 81 now Reserved. Set ID 10 is now Reserved. 83 3. Normative References 85 [RFC3954] Claise, B., "Cisco Systems NetFlow Services Export Version 86 9", RFC 3954, October 2004. 88 [RFC5655] Trammell, B., Boschi, E., Mark, L., Zseby, T., and A. 89 Wagner, "Specification of the IP Flow Information Export 90 (IPFIX) File Format", RFC 5655, October 2009. 92 Author's Address 94 Brian Trammell 95 Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich 96 Gloriastrasse 35 97 8092 Zurich 98 Switzerland 100 Phone: +41 44 632 70 13 101 Email: trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch