[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 RFC 6759

     IPFIX Working Group                                    B. Claise
     Internet-Draft                                         P. Aitken
     Intended Status: Informational                      N. Ben-Dvora
     Expires: April 30, 2012                      Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                     October 30, 2011
   
   
                    Export of Application Information in IPFIX
                 draft-claise-export-application-info-in-ipfix-03
   
   
     Status of this Memo
   
        This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance
        with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
   
        Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet
        Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working
        groups.  Note that other groups may also distribute working
        documents as Internet-Drafts.
   
        Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
        months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
        documents at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-
        Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work
        in progress."
   
        The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
        http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
   
        The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
        http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
   
        This Internet-Draft will expire on April 16, 2011.
   
   
   
   
   
     Internet-Draft  <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX >      March 2011
   
   
   
     Copyright Notice
   
        Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
        document authors.  All rights reserved.
   
        This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
        Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
        (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
        publication of this document.  Please review these documents
        carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
        respect to this document.  Code Components extracted from this
        document must include Simplified BSD License text as described
        in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided
        without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
   
   
   
     Abstract
   
        This document specifies an extension to the IPFIX information
        model specified in [RFC5102] to export application information.
   
   
     Conventions used in this document
   
        The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
        NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
        "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described
        in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
     <Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora>     Expires September 9 2011  [Page 2]


     Internet-Draft  <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX >      March 2011
   
   
     Table of Contents
   
   
        1. Overview ...............................................    4
           1.1. IPFIX Documents Overview ..........................    4
        2. Introduction ...........................................    5
        2.1. Application Information Use Cases ....................    7
        3. Terminology ............................................    7
           3.1. New Terminology ...................................    8
        4. applicationTag Information Element Specification .......    8
           4.1. Existing Classification Engine IDs ................   10
           4.2. Options Template Record for the Application Name ..   12
           4.3. Resolving IANA L4 port collisions..................   12
        5. Grouping the Applications with the Attributes...........   15
           5.1. Options Template Record for the Attribute Values ..   16
        6. Application Tag Examples................................   17
           6.1. Example 1: Layer 2 Protocol .......................   17
           6.2. Example 2: Standardized IANA Layer 3 Protocol .....   18
           6.3. Example 3: Cisco Systems Proprietary Layer 3 Protocol 19
           6.4. Example 4: Standardized IANA Layer 4 Port .........   21
           6.5. Example 4: Layer 7 Application ....................   22
           6.6. Example: port Obfuscation .........................   23
           6.7. Example: Application Mapping Options Template .....   24
           6.8. Example: Attributes Values Options Template Record    25
        7. IANA Considerations ....................................   26
           7.1. applicationDescription ............................   27
           7.2. applicationTag ....................................   27
           7.3. applicationName ...................................   27
           7.4. classificationEngineId ............................   27
           7.5. applicationCategoryName ...........................   28
           7.6. applicationGroupName ..............................   28
           7.7. p2pTechnology .....................................   28
           7.8. tunnelTechnology ..................................   28
           7.9. encryptedTechnology................................   29
        8. Security Considerations ................................   29
        9. References..............................................   29
           9.1. Normative References ..............................   29            9.2. Informative References ............................   29
        10. Acknowledgement .......................................   30
        11. Authors' Addresses ....................................   31
        Appendix A.  Additions to XML Specification of IPFIX
        Information Elements.......................................   32
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
     <Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora>     Expires September 9 2011  [Page 3]


     Internet-Draft  <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX >      March 2011
   
   
   
   
     List of Figures and Tables
   
   
        Figure 1: applicationTag Information Element ...............  8
        Figure 2: Selector ID encoding ............................. 10
        Table 1: Existing Classification Engine IDs ................ 11
        Table 2: IANA layer 4 port collisions between UDP and TCP .. 13
        Table 3: IANA layer 4 port collisions between SCTP and TCP . 15
        Table 4: Existing Application Tag Static Attributes  ....... 16
   
   
     1. Overview
   
     1.1. IPFIX Documents Overview
   
      The IPFIX Protocol [RFC5101] provides network administrators with
      access to IP Flow information.
   
      The architecture for the export of measured IP Flow information
      out of an IPFIX Exporting Process to a Collecting Process is
      defined in the IPFIX Architecture [RFC5470], per the requirements
      defined in RFC 3917 [RFC3917].
   
      The IPFIX Architecture [RFC5470] specifies how IPFIX Data Records
      and Templates are carried via a congestion-aware transport
      protocol from IPFIX Exporting Processes to IPFIX Collecting
      Processes.
   
      IPFIX has a formal description of IPFIX Information Elements,
      their name, type and additional semantic information, as specified
      in the IPFIX information model [RFC5102].
   
      In order to gain a level of confidence in the IPFIX
      implementation, probe the conformity and robustness, and allow
      interoperability, the Guidelines for IPFIX Testing [RFC5471]
      presents a list of tests for implementers of compliant Exporting
      Processes and Collecting Processes.
   
      The Bidirectional Flow Export [RFC5103] specifies a method for
      exporting bidirectional flow (biflow) information using the IP
      Flow Information Export (IPFIX) protocol, representing each Biflow
      using a single Flow Record.
   
   
   
   
     <Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora>     Expires September 9 2011  [Page 4]


     Internet-Draft  <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX >      March 2011
   
   
      The "Reducing Redundancy in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
      and Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Reports" [RFC5473] specifies a
      bandwidth saving method for exporting Flow or packet
      information, by separating information common to several Flow
      Records from information specific to an individual Flow Record:
      common Flow information is exported only once.
   
   
   
     2. Introduction
   
      Today service providers and network administrators are looking
      for visibility into the packet content rather than just the
      packet header.  Some network devices Metering Processes inspect
      the packet content and identify the applications that are
      utilizing the network traffic.  Applications in this context
      are defined as networking protocols used by networking
      processes that exchange packets between them (such as the web
      applications, peer to peer applications, file transfer, e-mail
      applications, etc.). Combined with other information elements,
      some of which being application specific, the applications can
      be further characterized.
      Examples include: web application to a specific domain, per
      user specific traffic, a video application with a specific
      codec, etc...
   
      The application identification is based on different kind of
      methods or even a combination of such methods:
      1. L2 protocols (such as ARP, PPP, LLDP)
      2. IP protocols (such as ICMP, IGMP, GRE)
      3. TCP or UDP ports (such as HTTP, Telnet, FTP)
      4. Application layer header (of the application to be
        identified)
      5. Packet data content
      6. Packets and traffic behavior
   
      The exact application identification methods are part of the
      Metering Process internals that aims to provide an accurate
      identification with a minimum false identification.  This task
      requires a sophisticated Metering Process since the protocols
      do not behave in a standard manner.
      1. Applications use port obfuscation where the application
        run on different port than the IANA assigned one.  For
        example a HTTP server might run a TCP port 23 (assigned
        to telnet in [IANA-PORTS])
      2. IANA does not accurately reflect how certain ports are
        "commonly" used today.  Some ports are reserved, but
   
   
     <Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora>     Expires September 9 2011  [Page 5]


     Internet-Draft  <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX >      March 2011
   
   
        the application either never became prevalent or is not
        in use today.
      3. The application behavior and identification logic
        become more and more complex
   
      For that reason, such Metering Processes usually detect
      application based on multiple mechanisms in parallel.
      Detecting applications based only on port matching might
      wrongly identify the traffic.  Note that this example stresses
      the need for the engine strength.  If the Metering Process is
      capable of detecting applications more accurately it is
      considered as stronger and more accurate.
   
      Similarly, a reporting mechanism that uses L4 port based
      applications only, such as L4:<known port>, would have a
      similar issues.  The reporting system should be capable of
      reporting the applications classified using all types for
      mechanisms.  In particular applications that does not have any
      IANA port definition.  While a mechanism to export application
      information should be defined, the L4 port being in use must be
      exported using the destination port (destinationTransportPort
      at [IANA-IPFIX]) in the corresponding NetFlow record.
   
      Cisco Systems uses the IPFIX application tag as described in
      section 4. to export the application information with the IPFIX
      protocol [RFC5101].
   
      Application could be defined at different OSI layers, from the
      layer 2 to the layer 7. Examples: Cisco Discovery Protocol is
      layer 2 application, ICMP is layer 3 application [IANA-PROTO],
      HTTP is layer 4 application [IANA-PORTS], and skype is layer 7.
   
      While an ideal solution would be an IANA registry for
      applications above (or inside the payload of) the well known
      ports [IANA-PORTS], this solution is not always possible as the
      some applications require well known specifications.
      Therefore, some reverse engineering is required, as well as a
      ubiquitous language for application identification.  Clearly
      not realistic.
   
      As this specification focuses on the application information
      encoding, this document doesn't contain an application registry
      for non IANA applications.  However, a reference to the Cisco
      assigned numbers for the Application Tag and the different
      attribute assignments can be found at [CISCO].
   
   
   
   
     <Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora>     Expires September 9 2011  [Page 6]


     Internet-Draft  <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX >      March 2011
   
   
     2.1. Application Information Use Cases
   
      There are several use cases on which the application
      information is used:
   
      1. Network Visibility
   
        This is one of the main use cases for using the application
        information.  This use case is also called application
        visibility.  Network administrators are using such
        application visibility to understand the main network
        consumers, network trends and user behavior.
   
      2. Billing Services
   
        In some cases, network providers are willing to bill
        different applications differently.  For example, provide
        different billing for VoIP and Web browsing.
   
      3. Congestion Control
   
        While the traffic demand is increasing (mainly due to the
        high usage of peer to peer applications, video applications
        and web download applications),  the providers revenue
        doesn't grow. Providers are looking at a more efficient way
        to control and prioritize the network utilization.  An
        application aware bandwidth control system is used to
        prioritize the traffic based on the applications, giving the
        critical applications priority over the non-critical
        applications.
   
      4. Security Functions
   
        Application knowledge is sometimes used in security functions
        in order to provide comprehensive functions such as
        Application based firewall,  URL filtering,  Parental
        control,  Intrusion detection,  etc.
   
      All of the above use cases require exporting of application
      information to provide the network function itself or to log
      the network function operation.
   
   
     3. Terminology
   
      IPFIX-specific terminology used in this document is defined in
      Section 2 of the IPFIX protocol specification [RFC5101].  As in
   
   
     <Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora>     Expires September 9 2011  [Page 7]


     Internet-Draft  <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX >      March 2011
   
   
      [RFC5101], these IPFIX-specific terms have the first letter of
      a word capitalized when used in this document.
   
   
     3.1. New Terminology
   
      Application Tag
   
          A unique identifier for an application.
   
   
     4. applicationTag Information Element Specification
   
        This document specifies the applicationTag Information
        Element, which is composed of two parts:
   
            1. 8 bits of Classification Engine ID. The Classification
               Engine can be considered as a specific registry for
               application assignment.
            2. m bits of Selector ID. The Selector ID length varies
               depending on the Classification Engine ID.
   
    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0  1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Class. Eng. ID|         Selector ID  ...                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                             ...                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   
                 Figure 1: applicationTag Information Element
   
   
        Classification Engine ID
   
          A unique identifier for the engine which determined the
          Selector ID.  Thus the Classification Engine ID defines the
          context for the Selector ID.
   
        Selector ID
   
   
   
     <Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora>     Expires September 9 2011  [Page 8]


     Internet-Draft  <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX >      March 2011
   
   
          A unique identifier of the application for a specific
          Classification Engine ID.
   
        Note that the Selector ID term is in sync with the PSAMP
        terminology.  See [RFC5476], Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Protocol
        Specifications.
   
        When an application is detected, the most granular
        application is encoded in the Application Tag: for example,
        ICMP would be encoded as layer 3 value 1, SNMP as layer 4
        value 161, bittorent as layer 7 value 69.
   
        The overall length of the applicationTag Information Element
        may be specified either in the IPFIX Template Record or by
        using an IPFIX Variable-Length Information Element. The
        receiver / decoder must respect this length rather than using
        the Classification Engine ID to make an assumption about the
        Selector ID size.
   
        When exporting applicationTag information in IPFIX, the
        applicationTag SHOULD be encoded in a variable-length
        Information Element [RFC5101].  However, if a legacy protocol
        such as NetFlow version 9 is used, and this protocol doesn't
        support variable length Information Elements, then either
        multiple templates (one per applicationTag length), or a
        single template corresponding to the maximum sized
        applicationTag MUST be used. This avoids the need for
        multiple Template Records with different applicationTag
        lengths when the IPFIX variable length encoding [RFC5101] is
        not available.
   
        As a consequence, although some Application Tags can be
        encoded in a smaller number of bytes (eg, an IANA L3 protocol
        encoding would take 2 bytes, while an IANA L4 port encoding
        would take 3 bytes), nothing prevents an Exporting Process
        from exporting all Application Tags with a larger fixed
        length.
   
        Note that the Selector ID value is always encoded in the
        least significant bits as shown:
   
      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0  1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |Class. Eng. ID |            zero-valued upper-bits ...         |
   
   
     <Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora>     Expires September 9 2011  [Page 9]


     Internet-Draft  <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX >      March 2011
   
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                     ...  Selector ID                          |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   
                        Figure 2: Selector ID encoding
   
   
     4.1. Existing Classification Engine IDs
   
   
        The following Engine IDs have been allocated by Cisco
        Systems.
   
        Name         Value       Description
   
                     0          Invalid.
        IANA-L3      1          The IANA protocol (layer 3) number is
                                exported in the Selector ID.
                                See
                                http://www.iana.org/assignments/proto
                                col-numbers.
        CANA-L3      2          Cisco Systems proprietary layer 3
                              definition. Cisco Systems can still
                                export its own layer 3 protocol
                                numbers, while waiting for IANA to
                                assign it. The Selector ID has a
                                global significance for all Cisco
                                Systems devices under CANA
                                governance. Hopefully the same IDs
                                will be maintained after the IANA
                                standardization.
        IANA-L4      3          IANA layer 4 well-known port number
                                is exported in the Selector ID.
                                See
                                http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-
                                numbers.
                                Note: as a flow is unidirectional, it
                                contains the destination port in a
                                flow from the client to the server.
        CANA-L4      4          Cisco Systems proprietary layer 4
                                definition. Cisco Systems can still
                                export its own layer 4 port numbers,
                                while waiting for IANA to assign it.
   
   
     <Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora>     Expires September 9 2011 [Page 10]


     Internet-Draft  <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX >      March 2011
   
   
                                The Selector ID has global
                                significance for all Cisco Systems
                                devices under CANA governance.
                                Hopefully the same ID will be
                                maintained after the IANA
                                standardization. Example: IPFIX had
                                the port 4739 pre-assigned in the
                                IETF draft for years. While waiting
                                for the IANA registration, we could
                                use this Selector ID.
                     5          Reserved.
        USER-        6          The Selector ID represents
        Defined                 applications defined by the user
                                (using CLI or GUI) based on the
                                methods described in section 2.
                     7          Reserved.
                     8          Reserved.
                     9          Reserved.
                     10         Reserved.
                     11         Reserved.
        CANA-L2      12         The Selector ID represents the Cisco
                                Systems unique global layer 2
                                applications. The Selector ID has a
                                global significance.
        CANA-L7      13         The Selector ID represents the Cisco
                                Systems unique global ID for the
                                layer 7 applications. The Selector ID
                                has global significance for all Cisco
                                Systems devices.
                     14         Reserved.
                     15         Reserved.
                     16         Reserved.
                     17
                     to         Available.
                     254
        MAX          255        255 is the maximum Engine ID.
   
                 Table 1: Existing Classification Engine IDs
   
        Note 1: "CANA = Cisco Systems Assigned Number Authority",
        Cisco Systems's version of IANA for internal IDs.
   
        Note 2: This is an extensible list, and new Classification
        Engine IDs may be allocated at any time. See [CISCO] for the
        latest version.
   
   
   
     <Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora>     Expires September 9 2011 [Page 11]


     Internet-Draft  <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX >      March 2011
   
   
   
     4.2. Options Template Record for the Application Name
   
        For engines which specify locally unique Application Tags
        (which means unique per engine and per router), an Options
        Template Record (see [RFC5101]) MUST be used to export the
        correspondence between the Application Tag, the Application
        Name, and the Application Description.  This is called the
        "options application-table".  For engines which specify
        globally unique Application Tags, an Options Template Record
        SHOULD be used to export the correspondence between the
        Application Tag, the Application Name and the Application
        Description, unless the mapping is hardcoded in the NetFlow
        Collector, or known out of band (for example, by polling a
        MIB).
   
     4.3. Resolving IANA L4 port collisions
   
        Even if the IANA L4 ports usually point to the same protocols
        for both UDP, TCP or other transport types, there are some
        exceptions. The following table lists 10 ports that have
        different protocols assigned for TCP and UDP:
   
        exec            512/tcp    remote process execution;
        #                          authentication performed using
        #                          passwords and UNIX login names
        comsat/biff     512/udp    used by mail system to notify users
        #                          of new mail received; currently
        #                          receives messages only from
        #                          processes on the same machine
        login           513/tcp    remote login a la telnet;
        #                          automatic authentication performed
        #                          based on priviledged port numbers
        #                          and distributed data bases which
        #                          identify "authentication domains"
        who             513/udp    maintains data bases showing who's
        #                          logged in to machines on a local
        #                          net and the load average of the
        #                          machine
        shell           514/tcp    cmd
        #                          like exec, but automatic
        authentication
        #                          is performed as for login server
        syslog          514/udp
        oob-ws-https    664/tcp    DMTF out-of-band secure web services
        #                          management protocol
   
   
     <Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora>     Expires September 9 2011 [Page 12]


     Internet-Draft  <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX >      March 2011
   
   
        #                          Jim Davis
        <jim.davis&wbemsolutions.com>
        #                          June 2007
        asf-secure-rmcp 664/udp    ASF Secure Remote Management
        #                          and Control Protocol
        rfile           750/tcp
        kerberos-iv     750/udp    kerberos version iv
        submit          773/tcp
        notify          773/udp
        rpasswd         774/tcp
        acmaint_dbd     774/udp
        entomb          775/tcp
        acmaint_transd  775/udp
        busboy          998/tcp
        puparp          998/udp
        garcon          999/tcp
        applix          999/udp    Applix ac
   
           Table 2: IANA layer 4 port collisions between UDP and TCP
   
        The following table lists 19 ports that have different
        protocols assigned for TCP and SCTP:
   
        #               3097/tcp    Reserved
        itu-bicc-stc    3097/sctp   ITU-T Q.1902.1/Q.2150.3
                                    Greg Sidebottom<gregside&home.com>
        #               5090/tcp    <not assigned>
        car             5090/sctp   Candidate AR
        #               5091/tcp    <not assigned>
        cxtp            5091/sctp   Context Transfer Protocol
                                    RFC 4065 - July 2005
        #               6704/tcp    Reserved
        frc-hp          6704/sctp   ForCES HP (High Priority) channel
        #                           [RFC5811]
        #               6705/tcp    Reserved
        frc-mp          6705/sctp   ForCES MP (Medium Priority) channel
        #                           [RFC5811]
        #               6706/tcp    Reserved
        frc-lp          6706/sctp   ForCES LP (Low priority) channel
        #                           [RFC5811]
        #               9082/tcp    <not assigned>
        lcs-ap          9082/sctp   LCS Application Protocol
        #                           Kimmo Kymalainen
   
   
   
     <Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora>     Expires September 9 2011 [Page 13]


     Internet-Draft  <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX >      March 2011
   
   
                                    <kimmo.kymalainen&etsi.org>
                                    04 June 2010
        #               9902/tcp    <not assigned>
        enrp-sctp-tls   9902/sctp   enrp/tls server channel
        #                          [RFC5353]
        #               11997/tcp   <not assigned>
        #               11998/tcp   <not assigned>
        #               11999/tcp   <not assigned>
        wmereceiving    11997/sctp  WorldMailExpress
        wmedistribution 11998/sctp  WorldMailExpress
        wmereporting    11999/sctp  WorldMailExpress
                                   Greg Foutz<gregf&adminovation.com>
                                    March 2006
        #               25471/tcp   <not assigned>
        rna             25471/sctp  RNSAP User Adaptation for Iurh
        #                           Dario S. Tonesi
                                    <dario.tonesi&nsn.com>
                                    07 February 2011
        #               29118/tcp   Reserved
        sgsap           29118/sctp  SGsAP in 3GPP
        #               29168/tcp   Reserved
        sbcap           29168/sctp  SBcAP in 3GPP
        #               29169/tcp   <not assigned>
        iuhsctpassoc    29169/sctp  HNBAP and RUA Common Association
                                    John
                                    Meredith<John.Meredith&etsi.org>
                                    08 September 2009
        #               36412/tcp   <not assigned>
        s1-control      36412/sctp  S1-Control Plane (3GPP)
        #                           KimmoKymalainen
                                    <kimmo.kymalainen&etsi.org>
                                    01 September 2009
        #               36422/tcp   <not assigned>
        x2-control      36422/sctp  X2-Control Plane (3GPP)
        #                           Kimmo Kymalainen
                                    <kimmo.kymalainen&etsi.org>
                                    01 September 2009
        #               36443/tcp   <not assigned>
        m2ap            36443/sctp  M2 Application Part
        #                           Dario S. Tonesi
                                    <dario.tonesi&nsn.com>
   
   
     <Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora>     Expires September 9 2011 [Page 14]


     Internet-Draft  <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX >      March 2011
   
   
                                    07 February 2011
        #               36444/tcp   <not assigned>
        m3ap            36444/sctp  M3 Application Part
        #                           Dario S. Tonesi
                                    <dario.tonesi&nsn.com>
                                    07 February 2011
   
           Table 3: IANA layer 4 port collisions between SCTP and TCP
   
        Instead of imposing the transport protocol (UDP/TCP/SCTP/etc.)
        in the scope of the "options application-table" Options Template
        for all applications (on top of having the transport protocol as
        key-field in the Flow Record definition), we define that the L4
        application is always TCP related, by convention.  So, whenever
        the Collector has a conflict in looking up IANA, it would choose
        the TCP choice.  As a result, the UDP L4 applications from Table
        2 and the SCTP L4 applications from table 3 are assigned in the
        Cisco L7 Application Tag range (ie, under Classification Engine
        ID 13):
   
        Currently, there are no discrepancies between the well known
        ports for TCP and DCCP.
   
     5. Grouping the Applications with the Attributes
   
        Due to the high number of different application tags,
        categorizing them into groups offers the benefits of easier
        reporting and action, such as QoS policies.  Indeed, most
        applications with the same characteristics should be treated the
        same way; for example, all video traffic.
   
   
        Attributes are statically assigned per application tag and are
        independent of the traffic. The attributes are listed below:
   
             Name                   Description
   
             Category               An attribute that provides a first
                                    level categorization for each
                                    application tag. Examples include:
                                    browsing, email, file-sharing,
                                    gaming, instant messaging, voice-
                                    and-video, etc...
                                    The category attribute is encoded by
                                    the ApplicationCategoryName
                                    Information Element.
   
   
     <Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora>     Expires September 9 2011 [Page 15]


     Internet-Draft  <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX >      March 2011
   
   
   
             Application-           An attribute that groups multiple
             Group                  application tags that belong to the
                                    same networking application. For
                                    example, the ftp-group contain the
                                    ftp-data (port 20), ftp (port 20),
                                    ni-ftp (port 47), sftp (port 115),
                                    bftp (port 152), ftp-agent(port
                                    574), ftps-data (port 989). The
                                    application-group attribute is
                                    encoded by the ApplicationGroupName
                                    Information Element.
   
             P2P-Technology         Specifies if the application tag is
                                    based on peer-to-peer technology.
                                    The P2P-technology attribute is
                                    encoded by the p2pTechnology
                                    Information Element.
   
             Tunnel-                Specifies if the application tag is
             Technology             used as a tunnel technology. The
                                    tunnel-technology attribute is
                                    encoded by the tunnelTechnology
                                    Information Element.
   
             Encrypted              Specifies if the application tag is
                                    an encrypted networking protocol.
                                    The encrypted attribute is encoded
                                    by the encryptedTechnology
                                    Information Element.
   
              Table 4: Existing Application Tag Static Attributes
   
   
        Every application is assigned to one ApplicationCategoryName,
        one ApplicationGroupName, has one p2pTechnology, one
        tunnelTechnology, and one encryptedTechnology.
   
     5.1. Options Template Record for the Attribute Values
   
        An Options Template Record (see [RFC5101]) is used to export the
        correspondence between each Application Tag and its related
        Attribute values.  An alternative way for the Collecting Process
        to learn the correspondence is to populate these mappings out of
        band, for example, by loading a CSV file containing the
        correspondence table.
   
   
     <Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora>     Expires September 9 2011 [Page 16]


     Internet-Draft  <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX >      March 2011
   
   
   
        The Attributes Option Template contains the ApplicationTag as a
        scope field, followed by the ApplicationCategoryName,, the
        ApplicationGroupName, the p2pTechnology, the tunnelTechnology,
        and the encryptedTechnology Information Elements.
   
        A list of attributes may conveniently be exported using a
        subTemplateList per [RFC6313].
   
        An example is given in section 6.8.  below.
   
   
     6. Application Tag Examples
   
        The following examples are created solely for the purpose of
        illustrating how the extensions proposed in this document are
        encoded.
   
   
     6.1. Example 1: Layer 2 Protocol
   
        From the list of Classification Engine IDs in Table 1, we can
        see that the layer 2 Classification Engine ID is 12:
   
        L2        12    The Selector ID represents the layer 2
                         applications. The Selector ID has a global
                         significance.
   
        From the list of layer 2 protocols at [cisco], we can see that
        PPP has the value 24:
   
        NAME    Selector ID
        ppp     24
   
        So, in the case of layer 2 protocol PPP, the Classification
        Engine ID is 12 while the Selector ID has the value 24.
   
        Therefore the Application Tag is encoded as:
   
            0                   1
            0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
           |       12      |      24       |
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   
   
   
   
     <Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora>     Expires September 9 2011 [Page 17]


     Internet-Draft  <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX >      March 2011
   
   
        So the Application Tag has the value of 3097. Instead of
        representing the Application Tag in hexadecimal format, the
        format '12...24' is used for simplicity in the examples below.
   
        Flexible NetFlow creates a Template Record with a few
        Information Elements: amongst other things, the Application Tag.
        For example:
   
        - sourceIPv4Address (key field)
        - destinationIPv4Address (key field)
        - ipDiffServCodePoint (key field)
        - applicationTag (key field)
        - octetTotalCount (non key field)
   
        For example, a Flow Record corresponding to the above Template
        Record may contain:
   
            { sourceIPv4Address=1.1.1.1, destinationIPv4Address=2.2.2.2,
              ipDiffServCodePoint=0, applicationTag='12...24',
              octetTotalCount=123456 }
   
        The Collector has all the required information to determine that
        the application is PPP, because the Application Tag uses a
        global and well know registry, ie the IANA protocol number.
        The 24 value is globally unique within Cisco Systems for
        Classification Engine ID 12, so the Collector can determine
        which application is represented by the Application Tag by
        loading the registry out of band.
   
   
     6.2. Example 2: Standardized IANA Layer 3 Protocol
   
        From the list of Classification Engine IDs in Table 1, we can
        see that the IANA layer 3 Classification Engine ID is 1:
   
        IANA-       1      The IANA protocol (layer 3) number is
         L3                exported in the Selector ID.
                           See
                           http://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-
                           numbers..
   
        From the list of IANA layer 3 protocols (see [IANA-PROTO]), we
        can see that ICMP has the value 1:
   
        Decimal    Keyword    Protocol                    Reference
   
   
     <Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora>     Expires September 9 2011 [Page 18]


     Internet-Draft  <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX >      March 2011
   
   
        1          ICMP       Internet Control Message    [RFC792]
   
        So in the case of the standardized IANA layer 3 protocol ICMP,
        the Classification Engine ID is 1, and the Selector ID has the
        value of 1.
   
        Therefore the Application Tag is encoded as:
   
            0                   1
            0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
           |       1       |       1       |
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   
        So the Application Tag has the value of 257. Instead of
        representing the Application Tag in hexadecimal format, the
        format '1...1' is used for simplicity in the examples below.
   
        Flexible NetFlow creates a Template Record with a few
        Information Elements: amongst other things, the Application Tag.
        For example:
   
        - sourceIPv4Address (key field)
        - destinationIPv4Address (key field)
        - ipDiffServCodePoint (key field)
        - applicationTag (key field)
        - octetTotalCount (non key field)
   
        For example, a Flow Record corresponding to the above Template
        Record may contain:
   
            { sourceIPv4Address=1.1.1.1, destinationIPv4Address=2.2.2.2,
              ipDiffServCodePoint=0, applicationTag='1...1',
              octetTotalCount=123456 }
   
        The Collector has all the required information to determine that
        the application is ICMP, because the Application Tag uses a
        global and well know registry, ie the IANA L3 protocol number.
   
   
     6.3. Example 3: Cisco Systems Proprietary Layer 3 Protocol
   
        Assume that Cisco Systems has specified a new layer 3 protocol
        called "foo".
   
   
   
   
   
     <Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora>     Expires September 9 2011 [Page 19]


     Internet-Draft  <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX >      March 2011
   
   
        From the list of Classification Engine IDs in Table 1, we can
        see that the Cisco Systems layer 3 Classification Engine ID is
        2:
   
        CANA-       2      Cisco Systems proprietary layer 3
         L3                definition. Cisco Systems can still export
                           its own layer 3 protocol numbers, while
                           waiting for IANA to assign it. The
                           Selector ID has a global significance for
                           all Cisco Systems devices under CANA
                           governance. Hopefully the same IDs will be
                           maintained after the IANA standardization.
   
   
        A global registry within Cisco Systems specifies that the "foo"
        protocol has the value 90:
   
        Protocol    Protocol Id
        foo         90
   
        So in the case of Cisco Systems layer 3 protocol foo, the
        Classification Engine ID is 2, and the Selector ID has the value
        of 90.
   
        Therefore the Application Tag is encoded as:
   
            0                   1
            0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
           |       2       |       90      |
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   
        So the Application Tag has the value of 602. Instead of
        representing the Application Tag in hexadecimal format, the
        format '2..90' is used for simplicity in the examples below.
   
        Flexible NetFlow creates a Template Record with a few
        Information Elements: amongst other things, the Application Tag.
        For example:
   
        - sourceIPv4Address (key field)
        - destinationIPv4Address (key field)
        - ipDiffServCodePoint (key field)
        - applicationTag (key field)
        - octetTotalCount (non key field)
   
   
     <Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora>     Expires September 9 2011 [Page 20]


     Internet-Draft  <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX >      March 2011
   
   
   
        For example, a Flow Record corresponding to the above Template
        Record may contain:
   
            { sourceIPv4Address=1.1.1.1, destinationIPv4Address=2.2.2.2,
              ipDiffServCodePoint=0, applicationTag='2...90',
              octetTotalCount=123456 }
   
        Along with this Flow Record, a new Options Template Record would
        be exported, as shown in Section 6.7.
   
   
     6.4. Example 4: Standardized IANA Layer 4 Port
   
        From the list of Classification Engine IDs in Table 1, we can
        see that the IANA layer 4 Classification Engine ID is 3:
   
        IANA-       3      IANA layer 4 well-known port number is
         L4                exported in the selector ID.
                           See http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-
                           numbers.
   
                           Note: as a flow is unidirectional, it
                           contains the destination port in a flow
                           from the client to the server.
   
        From the list of IANA layer 4 ports (see [IANA-PORTS]), we can
        see that SNMP has the value 161:
   
        Keyword    Decimal    Description
        snmp       161/tcp    SNMP
        snmp       161/udp    SNMP
   
        So in the case of the standardized IANA layer 4 SNMP port, the
        Classification Engine ID is 3, and the Selector ID has the value
        of 161.
   
        Therefore the Application Tag is encoded as:
   
            0                   1
            0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
           |       3       |      161      |
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   
   
     <Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora>     Expires September 9 2011 [Page 21]


     Internet-Draft  <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX >      March 2011
   
   
   
        Flexible NetFlow creates a Template Record with a few
        Information Elements: amongst other things, the Application Tag.
        For example:
   
        - sourceIPv4Address (key field)
        - destinationIPv4Address (key field)
        - protocol (key field)
        - ipDiffServCodePoint (key field)
        - applicationTag (key field)
        - octetTotalCount (non key field)
   
        For example, a Flow Record corresponding to the above Template
        Record may contain:
   
            { sourceIPv4Address=1.1.1.1, destinationIPv4Address=2.2.2.2,
              protocol=17, ipDiffServCodePoint=0,
              applicationTag='3..161', octetTotalCount=123456 }
   
        The Collector has all the required information to determine that
        the application is SNMP, because the Application Tag uses a
        global and well know registry, ie the IANA L4 protocol number.
   
   
     6.5. Example 4: Layer 7 Application
   
        In this example, the Metering Process has observes some Citrix
        traffic.
   
        From the list of Classification Engine IDs in Table 1, we can
        see that the L7 unique Engine ID is 13:
   
         L7        13    The Selector ID represents the Cisco Systems
                         unique global ID for the layer 7
                         application. The Selector ID has a global
                         significance for all Cisco Systems devices.
   
        Suppose that the Metering Process returns the ID 10000 for
        Citrix traffic.
   
        So, in the case of this Citrix application, the Classification
        Engine ID is 13 and the Selector ID has the value of 10000.
   
        Therefore the Application Tag is encoded as:
   
   
   
     <Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora>     Expires September 9 2011 [Page 22]


     Internet-Draft  <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX >      March 2011
   
   
       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |      13       |                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                             10000                             |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   
        So the Application Tag has the value of '13..10000'.
   
        Note that the figure shows that the Exporting Process exports
        the value 10000 in 7 bytes: this is pure speculation.  However,
        it doesn't matter as the applicationTag would be exported in a
        variable length Information Element.
   
        Flexible NetFlow creates a Template Record with a few
        Information Elements: amongst other things, the Application Tag.
        For example:
   
        - sourceIPv4Address (key field)
        - destinationIPv4Address (key field)
        - ipDiffServCodePoint (key field)
        - applicationTag (key field)
        - octetTotalCount (non key field)
   
        For example, a Flow Record corresponding to the above Template
        Record may contain:
   
            { sourceIPv4Address=1.1.1.1, destinationIPv4Address=2.2.2.2,
              ipDiffServCodePoint=0, applicationTag='13...10000',
              octetTotalCount=123456 }
   
        The 10000 value is globally unique within Cisco Systems, so the
        Collector can determine which application is represented by the
        Application Tag by loading the registry out of band.
   
        Along with this Flow Record, a new Options Template Record would
        be exported, as shown in Section 6.7.
   
   
     6.6. Example: port Obfuscation
   
        For example, a HTTP server might run a TCP port 23 (assigned to
        telnet in [IANA-PORTS]). If the Metering Process is capable of
        detecting HTTP in the same case, the Application Tag
        representation must contain HTTP. However, if the reporting
        application wants to determine whether or the default HTTP port
   
   
     <Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora>     Expires September 9 2011 [Page 23]


     Internet-Draft  <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX >      March 2011
   
   
        80 or 8080 was used, it must export the destination port
        (destinationTransportPort at [IANA-IPFIX]) in the corresponding
        NetFlow record.
   
        In the case of a standardized IANA layer 4 port, the
        Classification Engine ID is 2, and the Selector ID has the value
        of 80 for HTTP (see [IANA-PORTS]).
   
        Therefore the Application Tag is encoded as:
   
            0                   1                   2
            0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
           |       3       |             80                |
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   
        Flexible NetFlow creates a Template Record with a few
        Information Elements: amongst other things, the Application Tag.
        For example:
   
        - sourceIPv4Address (key field)
        - destinationIPv4Address (key field)
        - protocol (key field)
        - destinationTransportPort (key field)
        - applicationTag (key field)
        - octetTotalCount (non key field)
   
        For example, a Flow Record corresponding to the above Template
        Record may contain:
   
            { sourceIPv4Address=1.1.1.1, destinationIPv4Address=2.2.2.2,
              protocol=17, destinationTransportPort=23,
              applicationTag='3..80', octetTotalCount=123456 }
   
        The Collector has all the required information to determine that
        the application is HTTP, but runs on port 23.
   
   
     6.7. Example: Application Mapping Options Template
   
        Along with the Flow Records shown in the above examples, a new
        Options Template Record would be exported to express the
        Application Name and Application Description associated with
        each Application Tag.
   
        The Options Template Record contains the following Information
        Elements:
   
   
     <Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora>     Expires September 9 2011 [Page 24]


     Internet-Draft  <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX >      March 2011
   
   
   
        1. Scope = applicationTag.
   
               From RFC 5101: "The scope, which is only available in the
               Options Template Set, gives the context of the reported
               Information Elements in the Data Records."
   
        2. applicationName.
   
        3. applicationDescription.
   
   
        The Options Data Record associated with the examples above would
        contain, for example:
   
            { scope=applicationTag='2...90',
              applicationName="foo",
              applicationDescription="The Cisco foo protocol",
   
              scope=applicationTag='13...10000',
              applicationName="Citrix",
              applicationDescription="A Citrix application" }
   
        When combined with the example Flow Records above, these Options
        Template Records tell the NetFlow collector:
   
        1. A flow of 123456 bytes exists from sourceIPv4Address 1.1.1.1
        to destinationIPv4address 2.2.2.2 with a DSCP value of 0 and an
        applicationTag of '12...90', which maps to the "foo"
        application.
   
        2. A flow of 123456 bytes exists from sourceIPv4Address 1.1.1.1
        to destinationIPv4address 2.2.2.2 with a DSCP value of 0 and an
        Application Tag of '13...10000', which maps to the "Citrix"
        application.
   
     6.8. Example: Attributes Values Options Template Record
   
        Along with the Flow Records shown in the above examples, a new
        Options Template Record is exported to express the values of the
        different attributes related to the Application Tags.
   
        The Options Template Record would contain the following
        Information Elements:
   
          1. Scope = applicationTag.
   
   
   
     <Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora>     Expires September 9 2011 [Page 25]


     Internet-Draft  <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX >      March 2011
   
   
               From RFC 5101: "The scope, which is only available in the
               Options Template Set, gives the context of the reported
               Information Elements in the Data Records."
   
   
          2. applicationCategoryName.
   
          3. applicationGroupName
   
          4. p2pTechnology
   
          5. tunnelTechnology
   
          6. encryptedTechnology
   
   
        The Options Data Record associated with the examples above would
        contain, for example:
   
            { scope=applicationTag='2...90',
              applicationCategoryName="foo-category",
              applicationGroupName="foo-group",
              p2pTechnology=NO
              tunnelTechnology=YES
              encryptedTechnology=NO
   
        When combined with the example Flow Records above, these Options
        Template Records tell the NetFlow collector:
   
        A flow of 123456 bytes exists from sourceIPv4Address 1.1.1.1 to
        destinationIPv4address 2.2.2.2 with a DSCP value of 0 and an
        applicationTag of '12...90', which maps to the "foo"
        application.  This application can be characterized by the
        relevant attributes values.
   
   
     7. IANA Considerations
   
      This document specifies 9 new IPFIX Information Elements: the
      applicationDescription, applicationTag, applicationName,
      classificationEngineId, applicationCategoryName,
      applicationGroupName, p2pTechnology, tunnelTechnology, and
      encryptedTechnology.
   
      New Information Elements to be added to the IPFIX Information
      Element registry at [IANA-IPFIX] are listed below.
   
   
     <Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora>     Expires September 9 2011 [Page 26]


     Internet-Draft  <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX >      March 2011
   
   
   
      EDITOR'S NOTE: the XML specification in Appendix A must be updated
      with the elementID values allocated below.
   
     7.1. applicationDescription
   
      Name: applicationDescription
      Description:
        Specifies the description of an application.
      Abstract Data Type: string
      Data Type Semantics:
      ElementId: 94
      Status: current
   
   
     7.2. applicationTag
   
      Name: applicationTag
      Description:
        Specifies an Application Tag.
      Abstract Data Type: octetArray
      Data Type Semantics: identifier
      Reference: See section 4. of [EDITORS NOTE: this document] for the
      applicationTag Information Element Specification.
      ElementId: 95
      Status: current
   
   
     7.3. applicationName
   
      Name: applicationName
      Description:
        Specifies the name of an application.
      Abstract Data Type: string
      Data Type Semantics:
      ElementId: 96
      Status: current
   
   
     7.4. classificationEngineId
   
      Name: classificationEngineId
      Description:
        Specifies the classification engine according to Table 1 in
        [EDITORS NOTE: this document].
      Abstract Data Type: unsigned8
      Data Type Semantics: identifier
   
   
     <Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora>     Expires September 9 2011 [Page 27]


     Internet-Draft  <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX >      March 2011
   
   
      ElementId: 101
      Status: current
   
   
     7.5. applicationCategoryName
   
      Name: applicationCategoryName
      Description:
        An attribute that provides a first level categorization for each
      Application Tag.
      Abstract Data Type: string
      Data Type Semantics:
      ElementId: <to be assigned>
      Status: current
   
   
     7.6. applicationGroupName
   
      Name: applicationGroupName
      Description:
        An attribute that groups multiple Application Tags that belong
      to the same networking application
      Abstract Data Type: string
      Data Type Semantics:
      ElementId: <to be assigned>
      Status: current
   
   
     7.7. p2pTechnology
   
      Name: p2pTechnology
      Description:
        Specifies if the Application Tag is based on peer-to-peer
      technology. Possible values are: "yes", "no", and "unassigned"
      Abstract Data Type: string
      Data Type Semantics:
      ElementId: 288
      Status: current
   
   
     7.8. tunnelTechnology
   
      Name: tunnelTechnology
      Description:
        Specifies if the application tag is used as a tunnel technology.
        Possible values are: "yes", "no", and "unassigned"
   
   
   
     <Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora>     Expires September 9 2011 [Page 28]


     Internet-Draft  <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX >      March 2011
   
   
      Abstract Data Type: string
      Data Type Semantics:
      ElementId: 289
      Status: current
   
   
     7.9. encryptedTechnology
   
      Name: encryptedTechnology
      Description:
        Specifies if the application tag is an encrypted networking
      protocol. Possible values are: "yes", "no", and "unassigned"
      Abstract Data Type: string
      Data Type Semantics:
      ElementId: 290
      Status: current
   
   
   
     8. Security Considerations
   
      The same security considerations as for the IPFIX Protocol
      [RFC5101] apply.
   
   
     9. References
   
     9.1. Normative References
   
        [RFC2119] S. Bradner, Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
                Requirement Levels, BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
   
        [RFC5101] Claise, B., Ed., "Specification of the IP Flow
                Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of
                IP Traffic Flow Information", RFC 5101, January 2008.
   
        [RFC5102] Quittek, J., Bryant, S., Claise, B., Aitken, P., and
                J. Meyer, "Information Model for IP Flow Information
                Export", RFC 5102, January 2008.
   
   
     9.2. Informative References
   
   
        [RFC792] J. Postel, Internet Control Message Protocol, RFC 792,
                September 1981.
   
   
   
     <Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora>     Expires September 9 2011 [Page 29]


     Internet-Draft  <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX >      March 2011
   
   
        [RFC3917] Quittek, J., Zseby, T., Claise, B., and S. Zander,
                Requirements for IP Flow Information Export, RFC 3917,
                October 2004.
   
        [RFC5103] Trammell, B., and E. Boschi, "Bidirectional Flow
                Export Using IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC
                5103, January 2008.
   
        [RFC5470] Sadasivan, G., Brownlee, N., Claise, B., and J.
                Quittek, "Architecture for IP Flow Information Export",
                RFC 5470, March 2009.
   
        [RFC5471] Schmoll, C., Aitken, P., and B. Claise, "Guidelines
                for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Testing", RFC
                5471, March 2009.
   
   
        [RFC5473] Boschi, E., Mark, L., and B. Claise, "Reducing
                Redundancy in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) and
                Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Reports", RFC 5473, March 2009.
   
        [RFC5476] Claise, B., Ed., "Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Protocol
                Specifications", RFC 5476, March 2009.
   
        [RFC6313] Claise, B., Dhandapani, G. Aitken, P., and S. Yates,
                "Export of Structured Data in IP Flow Information
                Export (IPFIX)", RFC6313, July 20111
   
        [IANA-IPFIX] http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xml
   
        [IANA-PORTS] http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers
   
        [IANA-PROTO] http://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers
   
        [CISCO] http://www.cisco.com
   
   
     10. Acknowledgement
   
      The authors would like to thank their many colleagues across Cisco
      Systems who made this work possible.
   
   
   
   
     <Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora>     Expires September 9 2011 [Page 30]


     Internet-Draft  <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX >      March 2011
   
   
     11. Authors' Addresses
   
   
      Benoit Claise
      Cisco Systems Inc.
      De Kleetlaan 6a b1
      Diegem 1813
      Belgium
   
      Phone: +32 2 704 5622
      EMail: bclaise@cisco.com
   
   
   
      Paul Aitken
      Cisco Systems (Scotland) Ltd.
      96 Commercial Quay
      Commercial Street
      Edinburgh, EH6 6LX, United Kingdom
   
      Phone: +44 131 561 3616
      EMail: paitken@cisco.com
   
   
   
      Nir Ben-Dvora
      Cisco Systems Inc.
      32 HaMelacha St.,
      P.O.Box 8735, I.Z.Sapir
      South Netanya, 42504
      Israel
   
      Phone: +972 9 892 7187
      EMail: nirbd@cisco.com
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
     <Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora>     Expires September 9 2011 [Page 31]


     Internet-Draft  <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX >      March 2011
   
   
      Appendix A.  Additions to XML Specification of IPFIX Information
      Elements
   
        This appendix contains additions to the machine-readable
        description of the IPFIX information model coded in XML in
        Appendix A and Appendix B in [RFC5102].  Note that this appendix
        is of informational nature, while the text in Section 7.
        (generated from this appendix) is normative.
   
        The following field definitions are appended to the IPFIX
        information model in Appendix A of [RFC5102].
   
        <field name="applicationDescription"
                 dataType="string"
                 group="application"
                 elementId="94" applicability="all" status="current">
            <description>
              <paragraph>
                 Specifies the description of an application.
              </paragraph>
            </description>
          </field>
   
          <field name="applicationTag"
                 dataType="octetArray"
                 group="application"
                 dataTypeSemantics="identifer"
                 elementId="95" applicability="all" status="current">
            <description>
              <paragraph>
                 Specifies an Application Tag.
              </paragraph>
            </description>
            <reference>
              <paragraph>
                 See section 4. of [EDITORS NOTE: this document] for the
        applicationTag Information Element Specification.
              </paragraph>
            </reference>
          </field>
   
          <field name="applicationName"
                 dataType="string"
                 group="application"
                 elementId="96" applicability="all" status="current">
            <description>
              <paragraph>
   
   
     <Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora>     Expires September 9 2011 [Page 32]


     Internet-Draft  <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX >      March 2011
   
   
                 Specifies the name of an application.
              </paragraph>
            </description>
          </field>
   
          <field name="classificationEngineId"
                 dataType="unsigned8"
                 group="application"
                 dataTypeSemantics="identifer"
                 elementId="101" applicability="all" status="current">
            <description>
              <paragraph>
                 Specifies the classification engine according to Table
        1 in [EDITORS NOTE: this document].
              </paragraph>
            </description>
          </field>
   
          <field name="applicationCategoryName"
                 dataType="string"
                 group="application"
                 elementId="<to be assigned>" applicability="all"
        status="current">
            <description>
              <paragraph>
                 An attribute that provides a first level categorization
                 for each Application Tag.
              </paragraph>
            </description>
          </field>
   
        <field name="applicationGroupName"
                 dataType="string"
                 group="application"
                 elementId="<to be assigned>" applicability="all"
        status="current">
            <description>
              <paragraph>
                   An attribute that groups multiple Application Tags
                   that belong to the same networking application.
              </paragraph>
            </description>
          </field>
   
          <field name="p2pTechnology"
                 dataType="string"
                 group="application"
   
   
     <Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora>     Expires September 9 2011 [Page 33]


     Internet-Draft  <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX >      March 2011
   
   
                 elementId="288" applicability="all" status="current">
            <description>
              <paragraph>
                     Specifies if the Application Tag is based on peer-
                     to-peer technology. Possible values are: "yes",
                     "no", and "unassigned".
              </paragraph>
            </description>
          </field>
   
          <field name="tunnelTechnology"
                 dataType="string"
                 group="application"
                 elementId="289" applicability="all" status="current">
            <description>
              <paragraph>
                       Specifies if the application tag is used as a
                       tunnel technology. Possible values are: "yes",
                       "no", and "unassigned".
              </paragraph>
            </description>
          </field>
   
          <field name="encryptedTechnology"
                 dataType="string"
                 group="application"
                 elementId="290" applicability="all" status="current">
            <description>
              <paragraph>
                       Specifies if the application tag is an encrypted
                       networking protocol. Possible values are: "yes",
                       "no", and "unassigned".
              </paragraph>
            </description>
          </field>
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
     <Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora>     Expires September 9 2011 [Page 34]
   

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/