[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]

Versions: (draft-trammell-ipfix-a9n) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 RFC 7015

IPFIX Working Group                                          B. Trammell
Internet-Draft                                                ETH Zurich
Intended status: Standards Track                               A. Wagner
Expires: August 30, 2012                                     Consecom AG
                                                               B. Claise
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                       February 27, 2012


  Flow Aggregation for the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol
                      draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-02.txt

Abstract

   This document describes the export of aggregated Flow information
   using IPFIX.  An Aggregated Flow is essentially an IPFIX Flow
   representing packets from multiple Original Flows sharing some set of
   common properties.  The document describes Aggregated Flow export
   within the framework of IPFIX Mediators and defines an interoperable,
   implementation-independent method for Aggregated Flow export.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 30, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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



Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


   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.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  IPFIX Protocol Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     1.2.  IPFIX Documents Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  Use Cases for IPFIX Aggregation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  Architecture for Flow Aggregation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.1.  Aggregation within the IPFIX Architecture  . . . . . . . .  8
     4.2.  Intermediate Aggregation Process Architecture  . . . . . . 12
       4.2.1.  Correlation and Normalization  . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   5.  IP Flow Aggregation Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     5.1.  Temporal Aggregation through Interval Distribution . . . . 15
       5.1.1.  Distributing Values Across Intervals . . . . . . . . . 16
       5.1.2.  Time Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     5.2.  Spatial Aggregation of Flow Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
       5.2.1.  Counting Original Flows  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       5.2.2.  Counting Distinct Key Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     5.3.  Spatial Aggregation of Non-Key Fields  . . . . . . . . . . 22
       5.3.1.  Counter Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
       5.3.2.  Derivation of New Values from Flow Keys and
               non-Key fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     5.4.  Aggregation Combination  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   6.  Additional Considerations and Special Cases in Flow
       Aggregation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     6.1.  Exact versus Approximate Counting during Aggregation . . . 24
     6.2.  Delay and Loss introduced by the IAP . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     6.3.  Considerations for Aggregation of Sampled Flows  . . . . . 24
     6.4.  Considerations for Aggregation of Heterogeneous Flows  . . 24
   7.  Export of Aggregated IP Flows using IPFIX  . . . . . . . . . . 25
     7.1.  Time Interval Export . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     7.2.  Flow Count Export  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
       7.2.1.  originalFlowsPresent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
       7.2.2.  originalFlowsInitiated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
       7.2.3.  originalFlowsCompleted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
       7.2.4.  deltaFlowCount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     7.3.  Distinct Host Export . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
       7.3.1.  distinctCountOfSourceIPAddress . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
       7.3.2.  distinctCountOfDestinationIPAddress  . . . . . . . . . 27
       7.3.3.  distinctCountOfSourceIPv4Address . . . . . . . . . . . 27
       7.3.4.  distinctCountOfDestinationIPv4Address  . . . . . . . . 28
       7.3.5.  distinctCountOfSourceIPv6Address . . . . . . . . . . . 28



Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


       7.3.6.  distinctCountOfDestinationIPv6Address  . . . . . . . . 28
     7.4.  Aggregate Counter Distribution Export  . . . . . . . . . . 28
       7.4.1.  Aggregate Counter Distribution Options Template  . . . 29
       7.4.2.  valueDistributionMethod Information Element  . . . . . 29
   8.  Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     8.1.  Traffic Time-Series per Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
     8.2.  Core Traffic Matrix  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
     8.3.  Distinct Source Count per Destination Endpoint . . . . . . 40
     8.4.  Traffic Time-Series per Source with Counter
           Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
   10. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
   11. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
   12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
     12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
     12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47


































Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


1.  Introduction

   The assembly of packet data into Flows serves a variety of different
   purposes, as noted in the requirements [RFC3917] and applicability
   statement [RFC5472] for the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
   protocol [I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis].  Aggregation beyond
   the flow level, into records representing multiple Flows, is a common
   analysis and data reduction technique as well, with applicability to
   large-scale network data analysis, archiving, and inter-organization
   exchange.  This applicability in large-scale situations, in
   particular, led to the inclusion of aggregation as part of the IPFIX
   Mediators Problem Statement [RFC5982], and the definition of an
   Intermediate Aggregation Process in the Mediator framework [RFC6183].

   Aggregation is part of a wide variety of applications, including
   traffic matrix calculation, generation of time series data for
   visualizations or anomaly detection, or measurement data reduction.
   Depending on the keys used for aggregation, it may additionally have
   an anonymizing affect on the data: for example, aggregation
   operations which eliminate IP addresses make it impossible to later
   identify nodes using those addresses.

   Aggregation as defined and described in this document covers the
   applications defined in [RFC5982], including 5.1 "Adjusting Flow
   Granularity", 5.4 "Time Composition", and 5.5 "Spatial Composition".
   However, this document specifies a more flexible architecture for an
   Intermediate Aggregation Process than that envisioned by the original
   Mediator work, in Section 4.2.  Instead of a focus on these specific
   limited use cases, the Intermediate Aggregation Process is specified
   to cover any activity commonly described as "flow aggregation".

   An Intermediate Aggregation Process may be applied to data collected
   from multiple Observation Points, as aggregation is natural to apply
   for data reduction when concentrating measurement data.  This
   document specifically does not address the protocol issues that arise
   when combining IPFIX data from multiple Observation Points and
   exporting from a single Mediator, as these issues are general to
   IPFIX Mediation; they are therefore treated in detail in the Mediator
   Protocol [I-D.ietf-ipfix-mediation-protocol] document.

   Since Aggregated Flows as defined in the following section are
   essentially Flows, the IPFIX protocol
   [I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis] can be used to export, and the
   IPFIX File Format [RFC5655] can be used to store, aggregated data
   "as-is"; there are no changes necessary to the protocol.  This
   document provides a common basis for the application of IPFIX to the
   handling of aggregated data, through a detailed terminology,
   Intermediate Aggregation Process architecture, and methods for



Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


   Original Flow counting and counter distribution across intervals.

1.1.  IPFIX Protocol Overview

   In the IPFIX protocol, { type, length, value } tuples are expressed
   in templates containing { type, length } pairs, specifying which {
   value } fields are present in data records conforming to the
   Template, giving great flexibility as to what data is transmitted.
   Since Templates are sent very infrequently compared with Data
   Records, this results in significant bandwidth savings.  Various
   different data formats may be transmitted simply by sending new
   Templates specifying the { type, length } pairs for the new data
   format.  See [I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis] for more
   information.

   The IPFIX Information Element Registry [iana-ipfix-assignments]
   defines a large number of standard Information Elements which provide
   the necessary { type } information for Templates.  The use of
   standard elements enables interoperability among different vendors'
   implementations.  Additionally, non-standard enterprise-specific
   elements may be defined for private use.

1.2.  IPFIX Documents Overview

   "Specification of the IPFIX Protocol for the Exchange of IP Traffic
   Flow Information" [I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis] and its
   associated documents define the IPFIX Protocol, which provides
   network engineers and administrators with access to IP traffic flow
   information.

   "Architecture for IP Flow Information Export" [RFC5470] defines the
   architecture for the export of measured IP flow information out of an
   IPFIX Exporting Process to an IPFIX Collecting Process, and the basic
   terminology used to describe the elements of this architecture, per
   the requirements defined in "Requirements for IP Flow Information
   Export" [RFC3917].  The IPFIX Protocol document
   [I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis] then covers the details of the
   method for transporting IPFIX Data Records and Templates via a
   congestion-aware transport protocol from an IPFIX Exporting Process
   to an IPFIX Collecting Process.

   This document specifies an Intermediate Process which may be applied
   at an IPFIX Mediator.  "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Mediation:
   Problem Statement" [RFC5982] introduces the concept of IPFIX
   Mediators, and defines the use cases for which they were designed;
   "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Mediation: Framework" [RFC6183]
   then provides an architectural framework for Mediators.  Protocol-
   level issues (e.g., template and observation domain handling across



Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


   Mediators) are covered by "Specification of the Protocol for IPFIX
   Mediation" [I-D.ietf-ipfix-mediation-protocol].


2.  Terminology

   Terms used in this document that are defined in the Terminology
   section of the IPFIX Protocol [I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis]
   document are to be interpreted as defined there.

   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 [RFC2119].

   In addition, this document defines the following terms

   Aggregated Flow:   A Flow, as defined by
      [I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis], derived from a set of zero
      or more original Flows within a defined Aggregation Interval.  The
      two primary differences between a Flow and an Aggregated Flow in
      the general case are (1) that the time interval (i.e., the two-
      tuple of start and end times) of a Flow is derived from
      information about the timing of the packets comprising the Flow,
      while the time interval of an Aggregated Flow are externally
      imposed; and (2) that an Aggregated Flow may represent zero
      packets (i.e., an assertion that no packets were seen for a given
      Flow Key in a given time interval).  Note that an Aggregated Flow
      is defined in the context of an Intermediate Aggregation Process
      only.  Once an Aggregated Flow is exported, it is essentially a
      Flow as in [I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis] and can be treated
      as such.

   Intermediate Aggregation Process:   an Intermediate Process as in
      [RFC6183] that aggregates records, based upon a set of Flow Keys
      or functions applied to fields from the record.

   Aggregation Interval:   A time interval imposed upon an Aggregated
      Flow.  Intermediate Aggregation Processes may use a regular
      Aggregation Interval (e.g. "every five minutes", "every calendar
      month"), though regularity is not necessary.  Aggregation
      intervals may also be derived from the time intervals of the
      Original Flows being aggregated.

   Partially Aggregated Flow:   A Flow during processing within an
      Intermediate Aggregation Process; refers to an intermediate data
      structure during aggregation within the Intermediate Aggregation
      Process architecture detailed in Section 4.2.




Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


   Original Flow:   A Flow given as input to an Intermediate Aggregation
      Process in order to generate Aggregated Flows.

   Contributing Flow:   An Original Flow that is partially or completely
      represented within an Aggregated Flow.  Each Contributing Flow is
      made up of zero or more Contributing Flows, and an Original Flow
      may contribute to zero or more Aggregated Flows.

   Original Exporter:   When the Intermediate Aggregation Process is
      hosted in an IPFIX Mediator, the Original Exporter is the Exporter
      from which the Original Flows are received.

   The terminology presented herein improves the precision of, but does
   not supersede or contradict the terms related to mediation and
   aggregation defined in the problem statement [RFC5982] and the
   framework [RFC6183] documents.  Within this document, the terminology
   defined in this section is to be considered normative.


3.  Use Cases for IPFIX Aggregation

   Aggregation, as a common data reduction method used in traffic data
   analysis, has many applications.  When used with a regular
   Aggregation Interval, it generates time series data from a collection
   of Flows with discrete intervals.  This time series data is itself
   useful for a wide variety of analysis tasks, such as generating input
   for network anomaly detection systems, or driving visualizations of
   volume per time for traffic with specific characteristics.  As a
   second example, traffic matrix calculation from flow data is
   inherently an aggregation action, by aggregating the Flow Key down to
   input or output interface, address prefix, or autonomous system.

   Irregular or data-dependent Aggregation Intervals and key aggregation
   operations can also be used to provide adaptive aggregation of
   network flow data.  Here, full Flow Records can be kept for Flows of
   interest, while Flows deemed "less interesting" to a given
   application can be aggregated.  For example, in an IPFIX Mediator
   equipped with traffic classification capabilities for security
   purposes, potentially malicious Flows could be exported directly,
   while known-good or probably-good Flows (e.g. normal web browsing)
   could be exported simply as time series volumes per web server.

   Note that an Intermediate Aggregation Process which removes
   potentially sensitive information as identified in [RFC6235] may tend
   to have an anonymising effect on the Aggregated Flows, as well;
   however, any application of aggregation as part of a data protection
   scheme should ensure that all the issues raised in [RFC6235] are
   addressed, specifically Section 4 "Anonymization of IP Flow Data",



Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


   Section 7.2 "IPFIX-Specific Anonymization Guidelines", and Section 9
   "Security Considerations".

   While much of the discussion in this document, and all of the
   examples, apply to the common case that the Original Flows to be
   aggregated are all of the same underlying type (i.e., are represented
   with identical or compatible Templates), and that each packet
   observed by the Metering Process on the far side of the Original
   Exporter is represented, this is not a necessary assumption.
   Aggregation can also be applied as part of a technique applying both
   aggregation and correlation to pull together multiple views of the
   same traffic from different Observation Points using different
   Templates.  For example, consider a set of applications running at
   different Observation Points for different purposes -- one generating
   flows with round-trip-times for passive performance measurement, and
   one generating billing records.  Once correlated, these flows could
   used to produce Aggregated Flows containing both volume and
   performance information together.  The correlation and normalization
   operation described in Section 4.2.1 handles this specific case of
   correlation.  Flow correlation in the general case is outside the
   scope of this document.


4.  Architecture for Flow Aggregation

   This section specifies how an Intermediate Aggregation Process fits
   into the IPFIX Architecture, and the architecture of the Intermediate
   Aggregation Process itself.

4.1.  Aggregation within the IPFIX Architecture

   An Intermediate Aggregation Process could be deployed at any of three
   places within the IPFIX Architecture.  While aggregation is most
   commonly done within a Mediator which collects Original Flows from an
   Original Exporter and exports Aggregated Flows, aggregation can also
   occur before initial export, or after final collection, as shown in
   Figure 1.  The presence of an IAP at any of these points is of course
   optional.













Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


   +===========================================+
   |  IPFIX Exporter        +----------------+ |
   |                        | Metering Proc. | |
   | +-----------------+    +----------------+ |
   | | Metering Proc.  | or |      IAP       | |
   | +-----------------+----+----------------+ |
   | |           Exporting Process           | |
   | +-|----------------------------------|--+ |
   +===|==================================|====+
       |                                  |
       |         (Aggregated Flow Export) |
       |                                  |
   +===|===========================+      |
   |   |  Mediator                 |      |
   + +-V-------------------+       |      |
   | | Collecting Process  |       |      |
   + +---------------------+       |      |
   | |         IAP         |       |      |
   + +---------------------+       |      |
   | |  Exporting Process  |       |      |
   + +-|-------------------+       |      |
   +===|===========================+      |
       |                                  |
       | (Aggregating Mediator)           |
       |                                  |
   +===|==================================|=====+
   |   | Collector                        |     |
   | +-V----------------------------------V-+   |
   | |         Collecting Process           |   |
   | +------------------+-------------------+   |
   |                    |        IAP        |   |
   |                    +-------------------+   |
   |                    |   File Writer     |   |
   |                    +-----------|-------+   |
   +================================|===========+
                                    |
          (Aggregation for Storage) |
                                    V
                             +------------------+
                             |    IPFIX File    |
                             +------------------+

                 Figure 1: Potential Aggregation Locations

   The Mediator use case is further shown in Figures A and B in
   [RFC6183].

   Aggregation can be applied for either intermediate or final analytic



Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


   purposes.  In certain circumstances, it may make sense to export
   Aggregated Flows directly from an original Exporting Process, for
   example, if the Exporting Process is applied to drive a time-series
   visualization, or when flow data export bandwidth is restricted and
   flow or packet sampling is not an option.  Note that this case, where
   the Aggregation Process is essentially integrated into the Metering
   Process, is essentially covered by the IPFIX architecture [RFC5470]:
   the Flow Keys used are simply a subset of those that would normally
   be used, and time intervals may be chosen other than those available
   from the cache policies customarily offered by the Metering Process.
   A Metering Process in this arrangement MAY choose to simulate the
   generation of larger Flows in order to generate Original Flow counts,
   if the application calls for compatibility with an Aggregation
   Process deployed in a separate location.

   In the specific case that an Aggregation Process is employed for data
   reduction for storage purposes, it can take Original Flows from a
   Collecting Process or File Reader and pass Aggregated Flows to a File
   Writer for storage.

   Deployment of an Intermediate Aggregation Process within a Mediator
   [RFC5982] is a much more flexible arrangement.  Here, the Mediator
   consumes Original Flows and produces Contributing Flows; this
   arrangement is suited to any of the use cases detailed in Section 3.
   In a Mediator, aggregation can be applied as well to aggregating
   Original Flows from multiple sources into a single stream of
   Aggregated Flows; the architectural specifics of this arrangement are
   not addressed in this document, which is concerned only with the
   aggregation operation itself; see [I-D.ietf-ipfix-mediation-protocol]
   for details.

   The data paths into and out of an Intermediate Aggregation Process
   are shown in Figure 2.


















Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


     packets --+                     +- IPFIX Messages -+
               |                     |                  |
               V                     V                  V
     +==================+ +====================+ +=============+
     | Metering Process | | Collecting Process | | File Reader |
     |                  | +====================+ +=============+
     | (Original Flows  |            |  Original Flows  |
     |  or direct aggr.)|            V                  V
     + - - - - - - - - -+======================================+
     |           Intermediate Aggregation Process (IAP)        |
     +=========================================================+
               | Aggregated                  Aggregated |
               | Flows                            Flows |
               V                                        V
     +===================+                       +=============+
     | Exporting Process |                       | File Writer |
     +===================+                       +=============+
               |                                        |
               +------------> IPFIX Messages <----------+

           Figure 2: Data paths through the aggregation process

   Aggregation may also need to correlate original flows from multiple
   Metering Processes, each according to a different Template with
   different Flow Keys and values.  This arrangement is shown in
   Figure 3; in this case, the correlation and normalization operation
   described in Section 4.2.1 handles merging the Original Flows before
























Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


    packets --+---------------------+------------------+
              |                     |                  |
              V                     V                  V
    +====================+ +====================+ +====================+
    | Metering Process 1 | | Metering Process 2 | | Metering Process n |
    +====================+ +====================+ +====================+
              |                     |  Original Flows  |
              V                     V                  V
    +==================================================================+
    | Intermediate Aggregation Process  +  correlation / normalization |
    +==================================================================+
              | Aggregated                  Aggregated |
              | Flows                            Flows |
              V                                        V
    +===================+                       +=============+
    | Exporting Process |                       | File Writer |
    +===================+                       +=============+
              |                                        |
              +------------> IPFIX Messages <----------+

   Figure 3: Aggregating Original Flows from multiple Metering Processes

4.2.  Intermediate Aggregation Process Architecture

   Within this document, an Intermediate Aggregation Process can be seen
   as hosting a function composed of four types of operations on
   Partially Aggregated Flows, as illustrated in Figure 4.  "Partially
   Contributing Flows" as defined in Section 2 are essentially the
   intermediate results of aggregation, internal to the Intermediate
   Aggregation Process.





















Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


           Original Flows  /   Original Flows requiring correlation
   +=============|===================|===================|=============+
   |             |   Intermediate    |    Aggregation    |   Process   |
   |             |                   V                   V             |
   |             |   +-----------------------------------------------+ |
   |             |   |   (optional) correlation and normalization    | |
   |             |   +-----------------------------------------------+ |
   |             |                          |                          |
   |             V                          V                          |
   |  +--------------------------------------------------------------+ |
   |  |                interval distribution (temporal)              | |
   |  +--------------------------------------------------------------+ |
   |           | ^                         | ^                |        |
   |           | |  Partially Aggregated   | |    Flows       |        |
   |           V |                         V |                |        |
   |  +-------------------+       +--------------------+      |        |
   |  |  key aggregation  |<------|  value aggregation |      |        |
   |  |     (spatial)     |------>|      (spatial)     |      |        |
   |  +-------------------+       +--------------------+      |        |
   |            |                          |                  |        |
   |            |   Partially Aggregated   |      Flows       |        |
   |            V                          V                  V        |
   |  +--------------------------------------------------------------+ |
   |  |                     aggregate combination                    | |
   |  +--------------------------------------------------------------+ |
   |                                       |                           |
   +=======================================|===========================+
                                           V
                                   Aggregated Flows

    Figure 4: Conceptual model of aggregation operations within an IAP

   Interval distribution  is a temporal aggregation operation which
      imposes an Aggregation Interval on the partially Contributing
      Flow.  This Aggregation Interval may be regular, irregular, or
      derived from the timing of the Original Flows themselves.
      Interval distribution is discussed in detail in Section 5.1.

   Key aggregation   is a spatial aggregation operation which results in
      the addition, modification, or deletion of Flow Key fields in the
      Partially Aggregated Flows.  New Flow Keys may be derived from
      existing Flow Keys (e.g., looking up an AS number for an IP
      address), or "promoted" from non-Key fields (e.g., when
      aggregating Flows by packet count per Flow).  Key aggregation can
      also add new non-Key fields derived from Flow Keys that are
      deleted during key aggregation; mainly counters of unique reduced
      keys.  Key aggregation is discussed in detail in Section 5.2.




Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


   Value aggregation   is a spatial aggregation operation which results
      in the addition, modification, or deletion of non-Key fields in
      the Partially Aggregated Flows.  These non-Key fields may be
      "demoted" from existing Key fields, or derived from existing Key
      or non-Key fields.  Value aggregation is discussed in detail in
      Section 5.3.

   Aggregate combination   combines multiple partially Contributing
      Flows having undergone interval distribution, key aggregation, and
      value aggregation which share Flow Keys and Aggregation Intervals
      into a single Contributing Flow per set of Flow Key values and
      Aggregation Interval.  Aggregate combination is discussed in
      detail in Section 5.4.

   Correlation and normalization  is required when accepting Original
      Flows from Metering Processes which export different views of
      essentially the same Flows before aggregation; the details of
      correlation and normalization are specified in Section 4.2.1,
      below.

   The first three of these operations may be carried out any number of
   times in any order, either on Original Flows or on the results of one
   of the Operations (called Partially Aggregated Flows), with one
   caveat: since Flows carry their own interval data, any spatial
   aggregation operation implies a temporal aggregation operation, so at
   least one interval distribution step, even if implicit, is required
   by this architecture.  This is shown as the first step for the sake
   of simplicity in the diagram above.  Once all aggregation operations
   are complete, aggregate combination ensures that for a given
   Aggregation Interval, set of Flow Key values, and Observation Domain,
   only one Flow is produced by the Intermediate Aggregation Process.

   This model describes the operations within a single Intermediate
   Aggregation Process, and it is anticipated that most aggregation will
   be applied within a single process.  However, as the steps in the
   model may be applied in any order and aggregate combination is
   idempotent, any number of Intermediate Aggregation Processes
   operating in series can be modeled as a single process.  This allows
   aggregation operations to be flexibly distributed across any number
   of processes, should application or deployment considerations so
   dictate.

4.2.1.  Correlation and Normalization

   When accepting Original Flows from multiple Metering Processes, each
   of which provides a different view of the Original Flow as seen from
   the point of view of the IAP, an optional correlation and
   normalization operation combines each of these single Flow Records



Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


   into a set of unified partially aggregated Flows before applying
   interval distribution.  These unified Flows appear as if they had
   been measured at a single Metering Process which used the union of
   the set of Flow Keys and non-key fields of all Metering Processes
   sending Original Flows to the IAP.

   Since, due to export errors or other slight irregularities in flow
   metering, the multiple views may not be completely consistent;
   normalization involves applying a set of aggregation application
   specific corrections in order to ensure consistency in the unified
   Flows.

   In general, correlation and normalization should take multiple views
   of essentially the same Flow, as determined by the configuration of
   the operation itself, and render them into a single unified Flow.
   Flows which are essentially different should not be unified by the
   correlation and normalization operation.  This operation therefore
   requires enough information about the configuration and deployment of
   Metering Processes from which it correlates Original Flows in order
   to make this distinction correctly and consistently.

   The exact steps performed to correlate and normalize flows in this
   step are application-, implementation-, and deployment-specific, and
   will not be further specified in this document.


5.  IP Flow Aggregation Operations

   As stated in Section 2, an Aggregated Flow is simply an IPFIX Flow
   generated from Original Flows by an Intermediate Aggregation Process.
   Here, we detail the operations by which this is achieved within an
   Intermediate Aggregation Process.

5.1.  Temporal Aggregation through Interval Distribution

   Interval distribution imposes a time interval on the resulting
   Aggregated Flows.  The selection of an interval is specific to the
   given aggregation application.  Intervals may be derived from the
   Original Flows themselves (e.g., an interval may be selected to cover
   the entire interval containing the set of all Flows sharing a given
   Key, as in Time Composition describe in Section 5.1.2) or externally
   imposed; in the latter case the externally imposed interval may be
   regular (e.g., every five minutes) or irregular (e.g., to allow for
   different time resolutions at different times of day, under different
   network conditions, or indeed for different sets of Original Flows).

   The length of the imposed interval itself has tradeoffs.  Shorter
   intervals allow higher resolution aggregated data and, in streaming



Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


   applications, faster reaction time.  Longer intervals lead to greater
   data reduction and simplified counter distribution.  Specifically,
   counter distribution is greatly simplified by the choice of an
   interval longer than the duration of longest Original Flow, itself
   generally determined by the Original Flow's Metering Process active
   timeout; in this case an Original Flow can contribute to at most two
   Aggregated Flows, and the more complex value distribution methods
   become inapplicable.

   |                |                |                |
   | |<--Flow A-->| |                |                |
   |        |<--Flow B-->|           |                |
   |          |<-------------Flow C-------------->|   |
   |                |                |                |
   |   interval 0   |   interval 1   |   interval 2   |

              Figure 5: Illustration of interval distribution

   In Figure 5, we illustrate three common possibilities for interval
   distribution as applies with regular intervals to a set of three
   Original Flows.  For Flow A, the start and end times lie within the
   boundaries of a single interval 0; therefore, Flow A contributes to
   only one Aggregated Flow.  Flow B, by contrast, has the same duration
   but crosses the boundary between intervals 0 and 1; therefore, it
   will contribute to two Aggregated Flows, and its counters must be
   distributed among these Flows, though in the two-interval case this
   can be simplified somewhat simply by picking one of the two
   intervals, or proportionally distributing between them.  Only Flows
   like Flow A and Flow B will be produced when the interval is chosen
   to be longer than the duration of longest Original Flow, as above.
   More complicated is the case of Flow C, which contributes to more
   than two Aggregated Flows, and must have its counters distributed
   according to some policy as in Section 5.1.1.

5.1.1.  Distributing Values Across Intervals

   In general, counters in Aggregated Flows are treated the same as in
   any Flow.  Each counter is independently calculated as if it were
   derived from the set of packets in the Original Flow.  For the most
   part, when aggregating Original Flows into Aggregated Flows, this is
   simply done by summation.

   When the Aggregation Interval is guaranteed to be longer than the
   longest Original Flow, a Flow can cross at most one Interval
   boundary, and will therefore contribute to at most two Aggregated
   Flows.  Most common in this case is to arbitrarily but consistently
   choose to account the Original Flow's counters either to the first or
   the last Contributing Flow to which it could contribute.



Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


   However, this becomes more complicated when the Aggregation Interval
   is shorter than the longest Original Flow in the source data.  In
   such cases, each Original Flow can incompletely cover one or more
   time intervals, and apply to one or more Aggregated Flows.  In this
   case, the Aggregation Process must distribute the counters in the
   Original Flows across the multiple Aggregated Flows.  There are
   several methods for doing this, listed here in roughly increasing
   order of complexity and accuracy; most of these are necessary only in
   specialized cases.

   End Interval:   The counters for an Original Flow are added to the
      counters of the appropriate Aggregated Flow containing the end
      time of the Original Flow.

   Start Interval:   The counters for an Original Flow are added to the
      counters of the appropriate Aggregated Flow containing the start
      time of the Original Flow.

   Mid Interval:   The counters for an Original Flow are added to the
      counters of a single appropriate Aggregated Flow containing some
      timestamp between start and end time of the Original Flow.

   Simple Uniform Distribution:   Each counter for an Original Flow is
      divided by the number of time intervals the Original Flow covers
      (i.e., of appropriate Aggregated Flows sharing the same Flow
      Keys), and this number is added to each corresponding counter in
      each Aggregated Flow.

   Proportional Uniform Distribution:   This is like simple uniform
      distribution, but accounts for the fractional portions of a time
      interval covered by an Original Flow in the first and last time
      interval.  Each counter for an Original Flow is divided by the
      number of time _units_ the Original Flow covers, to derive a mean
      count rate.  This rate is then multiplied by the number of time
      units in the intersection of the duration of the Original Flow and
      the time interval of each Aggregated Flow.

   Simulated Process:   Each counter of the Original Flow is distributed
      among the intervals of the Aggregated Flows according to some
      function the Aggregation Process uses based upon properties of
      Flows presumed to be like the Original Flow.  For example, Flow
      Records representing bulk transfer might follow a more or less
      proportional uniform distribution, while interactive processes are
      far more bursty.







Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


   Direct:   The Aggregation Process has access to the original packet
      timings from the packets making up the Original Flow, and uses
      these to distribute or recalculate the counters.

   A method for exporting the distribution of counters across multiple
   Aggregated Flows is detailed in Section 7.4.  In any case, counters
   MUST be distributed across the multiple Aggregated Flows in such a
   way that the total count is preserved, within the limits of accuracy
   of the implementation (e.g., inaccuracy introduced by the use of
   floating-point numbers is tolerable).  This property allows data to
   be aggregated and re-aggregated without any loss of original count
   information.  To avoid confusion in interpretation of the aggregated
   data, all the counters for a set of given Original Flows SHOULD be
   distributed via the same method.

   More complex counter distribution methods generally require that the
   interval distribution process track multiple "current" time intervals
   at once.  This may introduce some delay into the aggregation
   operation, as an interval should only expire and be available for
   export when no additional Original Flows applying to the interval are
   expected to arrive at the Intermediate Aggregation Process.

   Note, however, that since there is no guarantee that Flows from the
   Original Exporter will arrive in any given order, whether for
   transport-specific reasons (i.e.  UDP reordering) or Metering Process
   implementation-specific reasons, even simpler distribution methods
   may need to deal with flows arriving in other than start time or end
   time order.  Therefore, the use of larger intervals does not obviate
   the need to buffer Partially Aggregated Flows within "current" time
   intervals, to ensure it can accept flow time intervals in any arrival
   order.  More generally, the interval distribution process SHOULD
   accept flow start and end times in the Original Flows in any
   reasonable order.  The expiration of intervals in interval
   distribution operations is dependent on implementation and deployment
   requirements, and SHOULD be made configurable in contexts in which
   "reasonable order" is not obvious at implementation time.  This
   operation may lead to delay and loss introduced by the IAP, as
   detailed in Section 6.2.

5.1.2.  Time Composition

   Time Composition as in Section 5.4 of [RFC5982] (or interval
   combination) is a special case of aggregation, where interval
   distribution imposes longer intervals on Flows with matching keys and
   "chained" start and end times, without any key reduction, in order to
   join long-lived Flows which may have been split (e.g., due to an
   active timeout shorter than the actual duration of the Flow.)  Here,
   no Key aggregation is applied, and the Aggregation Interval is chosen



Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


   on a per-Flow basis to cover the interval spanned by the set of
   aggregated Flows.  This may be applied alone in order to normalize
   split Flows, or in combination with other aggregation functions in
   order to obtain more accurate Original Flow counts.

5.2.  Spatial Aggregation of Flow Keys

   Key aggregation generates a new set of Flow Key values for the
   Aggregated Flows from the Original Flow Keys, non-Key fields in the
   Original Flows, or from correlation of the Original Flow information
   with some external source.  There are two basic operations here.
   First, Aggregated Flow Keys may be derived directly from Original
   Flow Keys through reduction, or the dropping of fields or precision
   in the Original Flow Keys.  Second, Aggregated Flow Keys may be
   derived through replacement, e.g. by removing one or more fields from
   the Original Flow and replacing them with fields derived from the
   removed fields.  Replacement may refer to external information (e.g.,
   IP to AS number mappings).  Replacement may apply to Flow Keys as
   well as non-key fields.  For example, consider an application which
   aggregates Original Flows by packet count (i.e., generating an
   Aggregated Flow for all one-packet Flows, one for all two-packet
   Flows, and so on).  This application would promote the packet count
   to a Flow Key.

   Key aggregation may also result in the addition of new non-Key fields
   to the Aggregated Flows, namely Original Flow counters and unique
   reduced key counters; these are treated in more detail in
   Section 5.2.1 and Section 5.2.2, respectively.

   In any key aggregation operation, reduction and/or replacement may be
   applied any number of times in any order.  Which of these operations
   are supported by a given implementation is implementation- and
   application-dependent.  Key aggregation may aggregate Original Flows
   with different sets of Flow Keys; only the Flow Keys of the resulting
   Aggregated Flows of any given Key aggregation operation need to
   contain the same set of fields.















Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


   Original Flow Keys
   +---------+---------+----------+----------+-------+-----+
   | src ip4 | dst ip4 | src port | dst port | proto | tos |
   +---------+---------+----------+----------+-------+-----+
        |         |         |          |         |      |
     retain   mask /24      X          X         X      X
        V         V
   +---------+-------------+
   | src ip4 | dst ip4 /24 |
   +---------+-------------+
   Aggregated Flow Keys (by source address and destination class-C)

          Figure 6: Illustration of key aggregation by reduction

   Figure 6 illustrates an example reduction operation, aggregation by
   source address and destination class C network.  Here, the port,
   protocol, and type-of-service information is removed from the Flow
   Key, the source address is retained, and the destination address is
   masked by dropping the low 8 bits.

   Original Flow Keys
   +---------+---------+----------+----------+-------+-----+
   | src ip4 | dst ip4 | src port | dst port | proto | tos |
   +---------+---------+----------+----------+-------+-----+
        |         |         |          |         |      |
   +-------------------+    X          X         X      X
   | ASN lookup table  |
   +-------------------+
        V         V
   +---------+---------+
   | src asn | dst asn |
   +---------+---------+
   Aggregated Flow Keys (by source and dest ASN)

        Figure 7: Illustration of key aggregation by reduction and
                                replacement

   Figure 7 illustrates an example reduction and replacement operation,
   aggregation by source and destination Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
   Autonomous System Number (ASN) without ASN information available in
   the Original Flow.  Here, the port, protocol, and type-of-service
   information is removed from the Flow Keys, while the source and
   destination addresses are run though an IP address to ASN lookup
   table, and the Aggregated Flow Keys are made up of the resulting
   source and destination ASNs.






Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


5.2.1.  Counting Original Flows

   When aggregating multiple Original Flows into an Aggregated Flow, it
   is often useful to know how many Original Flows are present in the
   Aggregated Flow.  This document introduces four new information
   elements in Section 7.2 to export these counters.

   There are two possible ways to count Original Flows, which we call
   here conservative and non-conservative.  Conservative flow counting
   has the property that each Original Flow contributes exactly one to
   the total flow count within a set of Contributing Flows.  In other
   words, conservative flow counters are distributed just as any other
   counter during interval distribution, except each Original Flow is
   assumed to have a flow count of one.  When a count for an Original
   Flow must be distributed across a set of Aggregated Flows, and a
   distribution method is used which does not account for that Original
   Flow completely within a single Aggregated Flow, conservative flow
   counting requires a fractional representation.

   By contrast, non-conservative flow counting is used to count how many
   Contributing Flows are represented in an Aggregated Flow.  Flow
   counters are not distributed in this case.  An Original Flow which is
   present within N Aggregated Flows would add N to the sum of non-
   conservative flow counts, one to each Aggregated Flow.  In other
   words, the sum of conservative flow counts over a set of Aggregated
   Flows is always equal to the number of Original Flows, while the sum
   of non-conservative flow counts is strictly greater than or equal to
   the number of Original Flows.

   For example, consider Flows A, B, and C as illustrated in Figure 5.
   Assume that the key aggregation step aggregates the keys of these
   three Flows to the same aggregated Flow Key, and that start interval
   counter distribution is in effect.  The conservative flow count for
   interval 0 is 3 (since Flows A, B, and C all begin in this interval),
   and for the other two intervals is 0.  The non-conservative flow
   count for interval 0 is also 3 (due to the presence of Flows A, B,
   and C), for interval 1 is 2 (Flows B and C), and for interval 2 is 1
   (Flow C).  The sum of the conservative counts 3 + 0 + 0 = 3, the
   number of Original Flows; while the sum of the non-conservative
   counts 3 + 2 + 1 = 6.

   Note that the active and inactive timeouts used to generate Original
   Flows, as well as the cache policy used to generate those Flows, have
   an effect on how meaningful either the conservative or non-
   conservative flow count will be during aggregation.  In general, all
   the Original Exporters producing Original Flows to be aggregated
   SHOULD be aggregated using caches configured identically or
   similarly.  Original Exporters using the IPFIX Configuration Model



Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


   SHOULD be configured to export Flows with equal or similar
   activeTimeout and inactiveTimeout configuration values, and the same
   cacheMode, as defined in section 4.3 of
   [I-D.ietf-ipfix-configuration-model].

5.2.2.  Counting Distinct Key Values

   One common case in aggregation is counting distinct key values that
   were reduced away during key aggregation.  The most common use case
   for this is counting distinct hosts per Flow Key; for example, in
   host characterization or anomaly detection, distinct sources per
   destination or distinct destinations per source are common metrics.
   These new non-Key fields are added during key aggregation.

   For such applications, Information Elements for distinct counts of
   IPv4 and IPv6 addresses are defined in Section 7.3.  These are named
   distinctCountOf(KeyName).  Additional such Information Elements
   SHOULD be registered with IANA on an as-needed basis.

5.3.  Spatial Aggregation of Non-Key Fields

   Aggregation operations may also lead to the addition of value fields
   demoted from key fields, or derived from other value fields in the
   Original Flows.  Specific cases of this are treated in the
   subsections below.

5.3.1.  Counter Statistics

   Some applications of aggregation may benefit from computing different
   statistics than those native to each non-key field (i.e., union for
   flags, sum for counters).  For example, minimum and maximum packet
   counts per Flow, mean bytes per packet per Contributing Flow, and so
   on.  Certain Information Elements for these applications are already
   provided in the IANA IPFIX Information Elements registry
   (http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.html (e.g.
   minimumIpTotalLength).

   A complete specification of additional aggregate counter statistics
   is outside the scope of this document, and should be added in the
   future to the IANA IPFIX Information Elements registry on a per-
   application, as-needed basis.

5.3.2.  Derivation of New Values from Flow Keys and non-Key fields

   More complex operations may lead to other derived fields being
   generated from the set of values or Flow Keys reduced away during
   aggregation.  A prime example of this is sample entropy calculation.
   This counts distinct values and frequency, so is similar to distinct



Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


   key counting as in Section 5.2.2, but may be applied to the
   distribution of values for any flow field.

   Sample entropy calculation provides a one-number normalized
   representation of the value spread and is useful for annomaly
   detection.  The behaviour of entropy statistics is such that a small
   number of keys showing up very often drives the entropy value down
   towards zero, while a large number of keys, each showing up with
   lower frequency drives the entropy value up.

   Entropy statistics are generally useful for address-like keys, like
   IP addresses, port numbers, AS numbers, etc.  They can also be done
   on flow length, flow duration fields and the like, even if this
   generally yields less distinct value shifts when the traffic mix
   changes.

   As a practical example, one host scanning a lot of other hosts will
   drive source IP entropy down and target IP entropy up.  A similar
   effect can be observed for ports.  This pattern can also be caused by
   the scan-traffic of a fast Internet worm.  A second example would be
   a DDoS flooding attack against a single target (or small number of
   targets) which drives source IP entropy up and target IP entropy
   down.

   A complete specification of additional derived values or entropy
   information elements is outside the scope of this document.  Any such
   Information Elements should be added in the future to the IANA IPFIX
   Information Elements registry on a per-application, as-needed basis.
   However, in the special case of entropy calculations, to support
   comparability of entropies of fields with different bit sizes,
   entropy SHOULD be represented as a float32 or float64 value
   normalized to the range [0..1].

5.4.  Aggregation Combination

   Interval distribution and key aggregation together may generate
   multiple Partially Aggregated Flows covering the same time interval
   with the same set of Flow Key values.  The process of combining these
   Partially Aggregated Flows into a single Aggregated Flow is called
   aggregation combination.  In general, non-Key values from multiple
   Contributing Flows are combined using the same operation by which
   values are combined from packets to form Flows for each Information
   Element.  Counters are summed, averages are averaged, flags are
   unioned, and so on.







Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012               [Page 23]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


6.  Additional Considerations and Special Cases in Flow Aggregation

6.1.  Exact versus Approximate Counting during Aggregation

   In certain circumstances, particularly involving aggregation by
   devices with limited resources, and in situations where exact
   aggregated counts are less important than relative magnitudes (e.g.
   driving graphical displays), counter distribution during key
   aggregation may be performed by approximate counting means (e.g.
   Bloom filters).  The choice to use approximate counting is
   implementation- and application-dependent.

6.2.  Delay and Loss introduced by the IAP

   When accepting Original Flows in export order from traffic captured
   live, the Intermediate Aggregation Process wait for all Original
   Flows which may contribute to a given interval during interval
   distribution.  This is generally dominated by the active timeout of
   the Metering Process measuring the Original Flows.  For example, with
   Metering Processes configured with a 5 minute active timeout, the
   Intermediate Aggregation Process introduces a delay of at least 5
   minutes to all exported Aggregated Flows to ensure it has received
   all Original Flows.

   In certain circumstances, additional delay at the original Exporter
   may cause an IAP to close an interval before the last Original
   Flow(s) accountable to the interval arrives; in this case the IAP
   SHOULD drop the late Original Flow(s).  Accounting of flows lost at
   an Intermediate Process due to such issues is covered in
   [I-D.ietf-ipfix-mediation-protocol].

6.3.  Considerations for Aggregation of Sampled Flows

   The accuracy of Aggregated Flows may also be affected by sampling of
   the Original Flows, or sampling of packets making up the Original
   Flows.  The effect of sampling on flow aggregation is still an open
   research question.  However, to maximize the comparability of
   Aggregated Flows, aggregation of sampled Flows SHOULD only use
   Original Flows sampled using the same sampling rate and sampling
   algorithm, or Flows created from packets sampled using the same
   sampling rate and sampling algorithm.  For more on packet sampling
   within IPFIX, see [RFC5476].  For more on Flow sampling within the
   IPFIX Mediator Framework, see [I-D.ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech].

6.4.  Considerations for Aggregation of Heterogeneous Flows

   Aggregation may be applied to Original Flows from different sources
   and of different types (i.e., represented using different, perhaps



Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012               [Page 24]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


   wildly-different Templates).  When the goal is to separate the
   heterogeneous Original Flows and aggregate them into heterogeneous
   Aggregated Flows, each aggregation should be done at its own
   Intermediate Aggregation Process.  The Observation Domain ID on the
   Messages containing the output Aggregated Flows can be used to
   identify the different Processes, and to segregate the output.

   However, when the goal is to aggregate these Flows into a single
   stream of Aggregated Flows representing one type of data, and if the
   Original Flows may represent the same original packet at two
   different Observation Points, the Original Flows should be correlated
   by the correlation and normalization operation within the IAP to
   ensure that each packet is only represented in a single Aggregated
   Flow or set of Aggregated Flows differing only by aggregation
   interval.


7.  Export of Aggregated IP Flows using IPFIX

   In general, Aggregated Flows are exported in IPFIX as any normal
   Flow.  However, certain aspects of Aggregated Flow export benefit
   from additional guidelines, or new Information Elements to represent
   aggregation metadata or information generated during aggregation.
   These are detailed in the following subsections.

7.1.  Time Interval Export

   Since an Aggregated Flow is simply a Flow, the existing timestamp
   Information Elements in the IPFIX Information Model (e.g.,
   flowStartMilliseconds, flowEndNanoseconds) are sufficient to specify
   the time interval for aggregation.  Therefore, this document
   specifies no new aggregation-specific Information Elements for
   exporting time interval information.

   Each Aggregated Flow SHOULD contain both an interval start and
   interval end timestamp.  If an exporter of Aggregated Flows omits the
   interval end timestamp from each Aggregated Flow, the time interval
   for Aggregated Flows within an Observation Domain and Transport
   Session MUST be regular and constant.  However, note that this
   approach might lead to interoperability problems when exporting
   Aggregated Flows to non-aggregation-aware Collecting Processes and
   downstream analysis tasks; therefore, an Exporting Process capable of
   exporting only interval start timestamps MUST provide a configuration
   option to export interval end timestamps as well.







Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012               [Page 25]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


7.2.  Flow Count Export

   The following four Information Elements are defined to count Original
   Flows as discussed in Section 5.2.1.

7.2.1.  originalFlowsPresent

   Description:   The non-conservative count of Original Flows
      contributing to this Aggregated Flow.  Non-conservative counts
      need not sum to the original count on re-aggregation.

   Abstract Data Type:   unsigned64

   ElementId:   TBD1

   Status:   Current

7.2.2.  originalFlowsInitiated

   Description:   The conservative count of Original Flows whose first
      packet is represented within this Aggregated Flow.  Conservative
      counts must sum to the original count on re-aggregation.

   Abstract Data Type:   unsigned64

   ElementId:   TBD2

   Status:   Current

7.2.3.  originalFlowsCompleted

   Description:   The conservative count of Original Flows whose last
      packet is represented within this Aggregated Flow.  Conservative
      counts must sum to the original count on re-aggregation.

   Abstract Data Type:   unsigned64

   ElementId:   TBD3

   Status:   Current

7.2.4.  deltaFlowCount

   Description:   The conservative count of Original Flows contributing
      to this Aggregated Flow; may be distributed via any of the methods
      described in Section 5.1.1.  This Information Element is
      compatible with Information Element 3 as used in NetFlow version
      9.



Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012               [Page 26]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


   Abstract Data Type:   float64

   ElementId:   3

   Status:   Current

7.3.  Distinct Host Export

   The following four Information Elements represent the distinct counts
   of source and destination network-layer addresses, used to export
   distinct host counts reduced away during key aggregation.

7.3.1.  distinctCountOfSourceIPAddress

   Description:   The count of distinct source IP address values for
      Original Flows contributing to this Aggregated Flow, without
      regard to version.  This Information Element is preferred to the
      IP-version-specific counters, unless it is important to separate
      the counts by version.

   Abstract Data Type:   unsigned64

   ElementId:   TBD4

   Status:   Current

7.3.2.  distinctCountOfDestinationIPAddress

   Description:   The count of distinct destination IP address values
      for Original Flows contributing to this Aggregated Flow, without
      regard to version.  This Information Element is preferred to the
      version-specific counters below, unless it is important to
      separate the counts by version.

   Abstract Data Type:   unsigned64

   ElementId:   TBD5

   Status:   Current

7.3.3.  distinctCountOfSourceIPv4Address

   Description:   The count of distinct source IPv4 address values for
      Original Flows contributing to this Aggregated Flow.







Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012               [Page 27]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


   Abstract Data Type:   unsigned32

   ElementId:   TBD6

   Status:   Current

7.3.4.  distinctCountOfDestinationIPv4Address

   Description:   The count of distinct destination IPv4 address values
      for Original Flows contributing to this Aggregated Flow.

   Abstract Data Type:   unsigned32

   ElementId:   TBD7

   Status:   Current

7.3.5.  distinctCountOfSourceIPv6Address

   Description:   The count of distinct source IPv6 address values for
      Original Flows contributing to this Aggregated Flow.

   Abstract Data Type:   unsigned64

   ElementId:   TBD8

   Status:   Current

7.3.6.  distinctCountOfDestinationIPv6Address

   Description:   The count of distinct destination IPv6 address values
      for Original Flows contributing to this Aggregated Flow.

   Abstract Data Type:   unsigned64

   ElementId:   TBD9

   Status:   Current

7.4.  Aggregate Counter Distribution Export

   When exporting counters distributed among Aggregated Flows, as
   described in Section 5.1.1, the Exporting Process MAY export an
   Aggregate Counter Distribution Record for each Template describing
   Aggregated Flow records; this Options Template is described below.
   It uses the valueDistributionMethod Information Element, also defined
   below.  Since in many cases distribution is simple, accounting the
   counters from Contributing Flows to the first Interval to which they



Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012               [Page 28]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


   contribute, this is default situation, for which no Aggregate Counter
   Distribution Record is necessary; Aggregate Counter Distribution
   Records are only applicable in more exotic situations, such as using
   an Aggregation Interval smaller than the durations of Original Flows.

7.4.1.  Aggregate Counter Distribution Options Template

   This Options Template defines the Aggregate Counter Distribution
   Record, which allows the binding of a value distribution method to a
   Template ID.  Note that this Options Template causes the
   valueDistributionMethod to be implicitly scoped to the Observation
   Domain ID of the IPFIX Message containing the Aggregate Counter
   Distribution Record.  This is used to signal to the Collecting
   Process how the counters were distributed.  The fields are as below:

   +-------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
   | IE                      | Description                             |
   +-------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
   | templateId [scope]      | The Template ID of the Template         |
   |                         | defining the Aggregated Flows to which  |
   |                         | this distribution option applies.  This |
   |                         | Information Element MUST be defined as  |
   |                         | a Scope Field.                          |
   | valueDistributionMethod | The method used to distribute the       |
   |                         | counters for the Aggregated Flows       |
   |                         | defined by the associated Template.     |
   +-------------------------+-----------------------------------------+

7.4.2.  valueDistributionMethod Information Element

   Description:   A description of the method used to distribute the
      counters from Contributing Flows into the Aggregated Flow records
      described by an associated Template.  The method is deemed to
      apply to all the non-key Information Elements in the referenced
      Template for which value distribution is a valid operation; if the
      originalFlowsInitiated and/or originalFlowsCompleted Information
      Elements appear in the Template, they are not subject to this
      distribution method, as they each infer their own distribution
      method.  The distribution methods are taken from Section 5.1.1 and
      encoded as follows:











Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012               [Page 29]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


   +-------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
   | Value | Description                                               |
   +-------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
   | 1     | Start Interval: The counters for an Original Flow are     |
   |       | added to the counters of the appropriate Aggregated Flow  |
   |       | containing the start time of the Original Flow.  This     |
   |       | should be assumed the default if value distribution       |
   |       | information is not available at a Collecting Process for  |
   |       | an Aggregated Flow.                                       |
   | 2     | End Interval: The counters for an Original Flow are added |
   |       | to the counters of the appropriate Aggregated Flow        |
   |       | containing the end time of the Original Flow.             |
   | 3     | Mid Interval: The counters for an Original Flow are added |
   |       | to the counters of a single appropriate Aggregated Flow   |
   |       | containing some timestamp between start and end time of   |
   |       | the Original Flow.                                        |
   | 4     | Simple Uniform Distribution: Each counter for an Original |
   |       | Flow is divided by the number of time intervals the       |
   |       | Original Flow covers (i.e., of appropriate Aggregated     |
   |       | Flows sharing the same Flow Key), and this number is      |
   |       | added to each corresponding counter in each Aggregated    |
   |       | Flow.                                                     |
   | 5     | Proportional Uniform Distribution: Each counter for an    |
   |       | Original Flow is divided by the number of time _units_    |
   |       | the Original Flow covers, to derive a mean count rate.    |
   |       | This mean count rate is then multiplied by the number of  |
   |       | time units in the intersection of the duration of the     |
   |       | Original Flow and the time interval of each Aggregated    |
   |       | Flow.  This is like simple uniform distribution, but      |
   |       | accounts for the fractional portions of a time interval   |
   |       | covered by an Original Flow in the first and last time    |
   |       | interval.                                                 |
   | 6     | Simulated Process: Each counter of the Original Flow is   |
   |       | distributed among the intervals of the Aggregated Flows   |
   |       | according to some function the Aggregation Process uses   |
   |       | based upon properties of Flows presumed to be like the    |
   |       | Original Flow.  This is essentially an assertion that the |
   |       | Aggregation Process has no direct packet timing           |
   |       | information but is nevertheless not using one of the      |
   |       | other simpler distribution methods.  The Aggregation      |
   |       | Process specifically makes no assertion as to the         |
   |       | correctness of the simulation.                            |
   | 7     | Direct: The Aggregation Process has access to the         |
   |       | original packet timings from the packets making up the    |
   |       | Original Flow, and uses these to distribute or            |
   |       | recalculate the counters.                                 |
   +-------+-----------------------------------------------------------+




Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012               [Page 30]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


   Abstract Data Type:   unsigned8

   ElementId:   TBD10

   Status:   Current


8.  Examples

   In these examples, the same data, described by the same template,
   will be aggregated multiple different ways; this illustrates the
   various different functions which could be implemented by
   Intermediate Aggregation Processes.  Templates are shown in iespec
   format as introduced in [I-D.ietf-ipfix-ie-doctors].  The source data
   format is a simplified flow: timestamps, traditional 5-tuple, and
   octet count.  The template is shown in Figure 8.

   flowStartMilliseconds(152)[8]
   flowEndMilliseconds(153)[8]
   sourceIPv4Address(8)[4]
   destinationIPv4Address(12)[4]
   sourceTransportPort(7)[2]
   destinationTransportPort(11)[2]
   protocolIdentifier(4)[1]
   octetDeltaCount(1)[8]

                   Figure 8: Input template for examples

   The data records given as input to the examples in this section are
   shown below, in the format "flowStartMilliseconds-flowEndMilliseconds
   sourceIPv4Address:sourceTransportPort -> destinationIPv4Address:
   destinationTransportPort (protocolIdentifier) octetDeltaCount";
   timestamps are given in H:MM:SS.sss format.


















Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012               [Page 31]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


9:00:00.138-9:00:00.138 192.0.2.2:47113   -> 192.0.2.131:53   (17)   119
9:00:03.246-9:00:03.246 192.0.2.2:22153   -> 192.0.2.131:53   (17)    83
9:00:00.478-9:00:03.486 192.0.2.2:52420   -> 198.51.100.2:443  (6)  1637
9:00:07.172-9:00:07.172 192.0.2.3:56047   -> 192.0.2.131:53   (17)   111
9:00:07.309-9:00:14.861 192.0.2.3:41183   -> 198.51.100.67:80  (6) 16838
9:00:03.556-9:00:19.876 192.0.2.2:17606   -> 198.51.100.68:80  (6) 11538
9:00:25.210-9:00:25.210 192.0.2.3:47113   -> 192.0.2.131:53   (17)   119
9:00:26.358-9:00:30.198 192.0.2.3:48458   -> 198.51.100.133:80 (6)  2973
9:00:29.213-9:01:00.061 192.0.2.4:61295   -> 198.51.100.2:443  (6)  8350
9:04:00.207-9:04:04.431 203.0.113.3:41256 -> 198.51.100.133:80 (6)   778
9:03:59.624-9:04:06.984 203.0.113.3:51662 -> 198.51.100.3:80   (6)   883
9:00:30.532-9:06:15.402 192.0.2.2:37581   -> 198.51.100.2:80   (6) 15420
9:06:56.813-9:06:59.821 203.0.113.3:52572 -> 198.51.100.2:443  (6)  1637
9:06:30.565-9:07:00.261 203.0.113.3:49914 -> 197.51.100.133:80 (6)   561
9:06:55.160-9:07:05.208 192.0.2.2:50824   -> 198.51.100.2:443  (6)  1899
9:06:49.322-9:07:05.322 192.0.2.3:34597   -> 198.51.100.3:80   (6)  1284
9:07:05.849-9:07:09.625 203.0.113.3:58907 -> 198.51.100.4:80   (6)  2670
9:10:45.161-9:10:45.161 192.0.2.4:22478   -> 192.0.2.131:53   (17)    75
9:10:45.209-9:11:01.465 192.0.2.4:49513   -> 198.51.100.68:80  (6)  3374
9:10:57.094-9:11:00.614 192.0.2.4:64832   -> 198.51.100.67:80  (6)   138
9:10:59.770-9:11:02.842 192.0.2.3:60833   -> 198.51.100.69:443 (6)  2325
9:02:18.390-9:13:46.598 203.0.113.3:39586 -> 198.51.100.17:80  (6) 11200
9:13:53.933-9:14:06.605 192.0.2.2:19638   -> 198.51.100.3:80   (6)  2869
9:13:02.864-9:14:08.720 192.0.2.3:40429   -> 198.51.100.4:80   (6) 18289

                     Figure 9: Input data for examples

8.1.  Traffic Time-Series per Source

   Aggregating flows by source IP address in time series (i.e., with a
   regular interval) can be used in subsequent heavy-hitter analysis and
   as a source parameter for statistical anomaly detection techniques.
   Here, the Intermediate Aggregation Process imposes an interval,
   aggregates the key to remove all key fields other than the source IP
   address, then combines the result into a stream of Aggregated Flows.
   The imposed interval of 5 minutes is longer than the majority of
   flows; for those flows crossing interval boundaries, the entire flow
   is accounted to the interval containing the start time of the flow.

   In this example the Partially Aggregated Flows after each conceptual
   operation in the Intermediate Aggregation Process are shown.  These
   are meant to be illustrative of the conceptual operations only, and
   not to suggest an implementation (indeed, the example shown here
   would not necessarily be the most efficient method for performing
   these operations).  Subsequent examples will omit the Partially
   Aggregated Flows for brevity.

   The input to this process could be any Flow Record containing a



Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012               [Page 32]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


   source IP address and octet counter; consider for this example the
   template and data from the introduction.  The Intermediate
   Aggregation Process would then output records containing just
   timestamps, source IP, and octetDeltaCount, as in Figure 10.

   flowStartMilliseconds(152)[8]
   flowEndMilliseconds(153)[8]
   sourceIPv4Address(8)[4]
   octetDeltaCount(1)[8]

           Figure 10: Output template for time series per source

   Assume the goal is to get 5-minute time series of octet counts per
   source IP address.  The aggregation operations would then be arranged
   as in Figure 11.

                    Original Flows
                          |
                          V
              +-----------------------+
              | interval distribution |
              |  * impose uniform     |
              |    300s time interval |
              +-----------------------+
                  |
                  | Partially Aggregated Flows
                  V
   +------------------------+
   |  key aggregation       |
   |   * reduce key to only |
   |     sourceIPv4Address  |
   +------------------------+
                  |
                  | Partially Aggregated Flows
                  V
             +-------------------------+
             |  aggregate combination  |
             |   * sum octetDeltaCount |
             +-------------------------+
                          |
                          V
                  Aggregated Flows

       Figure 11: Aggregation operations for time series per source

   After the interval distribution step, only the time intervals have
   changed; the Partially Aggregated flows are shown in Figure 12.  Note
   that interval distribution follows the default Start Interval policy;



Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012               [Page 33]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


   that is, the entire flow is accounted to the interval containing the
   flow's start time.

9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.2:47113   -> 192.0.2.131:53   (17)   119
9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.2:22153   -> 192.0.2.131:53   (17)    83
9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.2:52420   -> 198.51.100.2:443  (6)  1637
9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.3:56047   -> 192.0.2.131:53   (17)   111
9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.3:41183   -> 198.51.100.67:80  (6) 16838
9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.2:17606   -> 198.51.100.68:80  (6) 11538
9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.3:47113   -> 192.0.2.131:53   (17)   119
9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.3:48458   -> 198.51.100.133:80 (6)  2973
9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.4:61295   -> 198.51.100.2:443  (6)  8350
9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 203.0.113.3:41256 -> 198.51.100.133:80 (6)   778
9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 203.0.113.3:51662 -> 198.51.100.3:80   (6)   883
9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.2:37581   -> 198.51.100.2:80   (6) 15420
9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 203.0.113.3:39586 -> 198.51.100.17:80  (6) 11200
9:05:00.000-9:10:00.000 203.0.113.3:52572 -> 198.51.100.2:443  (6)  1637
9:05:00.000-9:10:00.000 203.0.113.3:49914 -> 197.51.100.133:80 (6)   561
9:05:00.000-9:10:00.000 192.0.2.2:50824   -> 198.51.100.2:443  (6)  1899
9:05:00.000-9:10:00.000 192.0.2.3:34597   -> 198.51.100.3:80   (6)  1284
9:05:00.000-9:10:00.000 203.0.113.3:58907 -> 198.51.100.4:80   (6)  2670
9:10:00.000-9:15:00.000 192.0.2.4:22478   -> 192.0.2.131:53   (17)    75
9:10:00.000-9:15:00.000 192.0.2.4:49513   -> 198.51.100.68:80  (6)  3374
9:10:00.000-9:15:00.000 192.0.2.4:64832   -> 198.51.100.67:80  (6)   138
9:10:00.000-9:15:00.000 192.0.2.3:60833   -> 198.51.100.69:443 (6)  2325
9:10:00.000-9:15:00.000 192.0.2.2:19638   -> 198.51.100.3:80   (6)  2869
9:10:00.000-9:15:00.000 192.0.2.3:40429   -> 198.51.100.4:80   (6) 18289

         Figure 12: Interval imposition for time series per source

   After the key aggregation step, all Flow Keys except the source IP
   address have been discarded, as shown in Figure 13.  This leaves
   duplicate Partially Aggregated flows to be combined in the final
   operation.

















Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012               [Page 34]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


   9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.2      119
   9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.2       83
   9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.2     1637
   9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.3      111
   9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.3    16838
   9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.2    11538
   9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.3      119
   9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.3     2973
   9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.4     8350
   9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 203.0.113.3    778
   9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 203.0.113.3    883
   9:05:00.000-9:10:00.000 203.0.113.3   1637
   9:05:00.000-9:10:00.000 203.0.113.3    561
   9:05:00.000-9:10:00.000 192.0.2.2     1899
   9:05:00.000-9:10:00.000 192.0.2.3     1284
   9:05:00.000-9:10:00.000 203.0.113.3   2670
   9:10:00.000-9:15:00.000 192.0.2.4       75
   9:10:00.000-9:15:00.000 192.0.2.4     3374
   9:10:00.000-9:15:00.000 192.0.2.4      138
   9:10:00.000-9:15:00.000 192.0.2.3     2325
   9:10:00.000-9:15:00.000 192.0.2.2     2869
   9:10:00.000-9:15:00.000 192.0.2.3    18289

           Figure 13: Key aggregation for time series per source

   Aggregate combination sums the counters per key and interval; the
   summations of the first two keys and intervals are shown in detail in
   Figure 14.

     9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.2      119
     9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.2       83
     9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.2     1637
     9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.2    11538
   + 9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.2    15420
                                          -----
   = 9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.2    28797

     9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.3      111
     9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.3    16838
     9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.3      119
   + 9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.3     2973
                                          -----
   = 9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.3    20041

             Figure 14: Summation during aggregate combination

   Applying this to each set of Partially Aggregated Flows to produce
   the final Aggregated Flows shown in Figure 15 to be exported by the



Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012               [Page 35]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


   template in Figure 10.

   9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.2    28797
   9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.3    20041
   9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.4     8350
   9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 203.0.113.3  12861
   9:05:00.000-9:10:00.000 192.0.2.2     1899
   9:05:00.000-9:10:00.000 192.0.2.3     1284
   9:05:00.000-9:10:00.000 203.0.113.3   4868
   9:10:00.000-9:15:00.000 192.0.2.2     2869
   9:10:00.000-9:15:00.000 192.0.2.3    20594
   9:10:00.000-9:15:00.000 192.0.2.4     3587

          Figure 15: Aggregated Flows for time series per source

8.2.  Core Traffic Matrix

   Aggregating flows by source and destination autonomous system number
   in time series is used to generate core traffic matrices.  The core
   traffic matrix provides a view of the state of the routes within a
   network, and can be used for long-term planning of changes to network
   design based on traffic demand.  Here, imposed time intervals are
   generally much longer than active flow timeouts.  The traffic matrix
   is reported in terms of octets, packets, and flows, as each of these
   values may have a subtly different effect on capacity planning.

   This example demonstrates key aggregation using derived keys and
   original flow counting.  While some Original Flows may be generated
   by Exporting Processes on forwarding devices, and therefore contain
   the bgpSourceAsNumber and bgpDestinationAsNumber Information
   Elements, Original Flows from Exporting Processes on dedicated
   measurement devices will contain only a destinationIPv[46]Address.
   For these flows, the Mediator must look up a next hop AS from a IP to
   AS table, replacing source and destination addresses with AS numbers.
   The table used in this example is shown in Figure 16.  (Note that due
   to limited example address space, in this example we ignore the
   common practice of routing only blocks of /24 or larger).

   prefix            ASN
   192.0.2.0/25      64496
   192.0.2.128/25    64497
   198.51.100/24     64498
   203.0.113.0/24    64499

              Figure 16: Example Autonomous system number map

   The template for Aggregated Flows produced by this example is shown
   in Figure 17.



Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012               [Page 36]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


   flowStartMilliseconds(152)[8]
   flowEndMilliseconds(153)[8]
   bgpSourceAsNumber(16)[4]
   bgpDestinationAsNumber(17)[4]
   octetDeltaCount(1)[8]

               Figure 17: Output template for traffic matrix

   Assume the goal is to get 60-minute time series of octet counts per
   source/destination ASN pair.  The aggregation operations would then
   be arranged as in Figure 18.

                    Original Flows
                          |
                          V
              +-----------------------+
              | interval distribution |
              |  * impose uniform     |
              |   3600s time interval |
              +-----------------------+
                  |
                  | Partially Aggregated Flows
                  V
   +------------------------+
   |  key aggregation       |
   |  * reduce key to only  |
   |    sourceIPv4Address + |
   |    destIPv4Address     |
   +------------------------+
                  |
                  V
   +------------------------+
   |  key aggregation       |
   |  * replace addresses   |
   |    with ASN from map   |
   +------------------------+
                  |
                  | Partially Aggregated Flows
                  V
             +-------------------------+
             |  aggregate combination  |
             |   * sum octetDeltaCount |
             +-------------------------+
                          |
                          V
                  Aggregated Flows

           Figure 18: Aggregation operations for traffic matrix



Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012               [Page 37]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


   After the interval distribution step, only the time intervals have
   changed; the Partially Aggregated flows are shown in Figure 19.  Note
   that the flows are identical to those in interval distribution step
   in the previous example, except the chosen interval (1 hour, 3600
   seconds) is different; therefore, all the flows fit into a single
   interval.

9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 192.0.2.2:47113   -> 192.0.2.131:53   (17)   119
9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 192.0.2.2:22153   -> 192.0.2.131:53   (17)    83
9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 192.0.2.2:52420   -> 198.51.100.2:443  (6)  1637
9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 192.0.2.3:56047   -> 192.0.2.131:53   (17)   111
9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 192.0.2.3:41183   -> 198.51.100.67:80  (6) 16838
9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 192.0.2.2:17606   -> 198.51.100.68:80  (6) 11538
9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 192.0.2.3:47113   -> 192.0.2.131:53   (17)   119
9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 192.0.2.3:48458   -> 198.51.100.133:80 (6)  2973
9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 192.0.2.4:61295   -> 198.51.100.2:443  (6)  8350
9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 203.0.113.3:41256 -> 198.51.100.133:80 (6)   778
9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 203.0.113.3:51662 -> 198.51.100.3:80   (6)   883
9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 192.0.2.2:37581   -> 198.51.100.2:80   (6) 15420
9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 203.0.113.3:52572 -> 198.51.100.2:443  (6)  1637
9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 203.0.113.3:49914 -> 197.51.100.133:80 (6)   561
9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 192.0.2.2:50824   -> 198.51.100.2:443  (6)  1899
9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 192.0.2.3:34597   -> 198.51.100.3:80   (6)  1284
9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 203.0.113.3:58907 -> 198.51.100.4:80   (6)  2670
9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 192.0.2.4:22478   -> 192.0.2.131:53   (17)    75
9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 192.0.2.4:49513   -> 198.51.100.68:80  (6)  3374
9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 192.0.2.4:64832   -> 198.51.100.67:80  (6)   138
9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 192.0.2.3:60833   -> 198.51.100.69:443 (6)  2325
9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 203.0.113.3:39586 -> 198.51.100.17:80  (6) 11200
9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 192.0.2.2:19638   -> 198.51.100.3:80   (6)  2869
9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 192.0.2.3:40429   -> 198.51.100.4:80   (6) 18289

             Figure 19: Interval imposition for traffic matrix

   The next step is to discard irrelevant key fields, and replace the
   source and destination addresses with source and destination AS
   numbers in the map; the results of these key aggregation steps are
   shown in Figure 20.













Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012               [Page 38]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


   9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 AS64496 -> AS64497    119
   9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 AS64496 -> AS64497     83
   9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 AS64496 -> AS64498   1637
   9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 AS64496 -> AS64497    111
   9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 AS64496 -> AS64498  16838
   9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 AS64496 -> AS64498  11538
   9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 AS64496 -> AS64497    119
   9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 AS64496 -> AS64498   2973
   9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 AS64496 -> AS64498   8350
   9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 AS64499 -> AS64498    778
   9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 AS64499 -> AS64498    883
   9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 AS64496 -> AS64498  15420
   9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 AS64499 -> AS64498   1637
   9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 AS64499 -> AS64498    561
   9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 AS64496 -> AS64498   1899
   9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 AS64496 -> AS64498   1284
   9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 AS64499 -> AS64498   2670
   9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 AS64496 -> AS64497     75
   9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 AS64496 -> AS64498   3374
   9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 AS64496 -> AS64498    138
   9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 AS64496 -> AS64498   2325
   9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 AS64499 -> AS64498  11200
   9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 AS64496 -> AS64498   2869
   9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 AS64496 -> AS64498  18289

       Figure 20: Key aggregation for traffic matrix: reduction and
                                replacement

   Finally, aggregate combination sums the counters per key and
   interval.  The resulting Aggregated Flows containing the traffic
   matrix, shown in Figure 21, are then exported using the template in
   Figure 17.  Note that these aggregated flows represent a sparse
   matrix: AS pairs for which no traffic was received have no
   corresponding record in the output.

   9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 AS64496 -> AS64497    507
   9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 AS64496 -> AS64498  86934
   9:00:00.000-10:00:00.000 AS64499 -> AS64498  17729

              Figure 21: Aggregated Flows for traffic matrix

   The output of this operation is suitable for re-aggregation: that is,
   traffic matrices from single links or observarion points can be
   aggregated through the same interval imposition and aggregate
   combination steps in order to build a traffic matrix for an entire
   network.





Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012               [Page 39]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


8.3.  Distinct Source Count per Destination Endpoint

   Aggregating flows by destination address and port, and counting
   distinct sources aggregated away, can be used as part of passive
   service inventory and host characterization approaches.  This example
   shows aggregation as an analysis technique, performed on source data
   stored in an IPFIX File.  As the Transport Session in this File is
   bounded, removal of all timestamp information allows summarization of
   the entire time interval contained within the interval.  Removal of
   timing information during interval imposition is equivalent to an
   infinitely long imposed time interval.  This demonstrates both how
   infinite intervals work, and how unique counters work.  The
   aggregation operations are summarized in Figure 22.






































Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012               [Page 40]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


                    Original Flows
                          |
                          V
              +-----------------------+
              | interval distribution |
              |  * discard timestamps |
              +-----------------------+
                  |
                  | Partially Aggregated Flows
                  V
   +----------------------------+
   |  value aggregation         |
   |  * discard octetDeltaCount |
   +----------------------------+
                  |
                  | Partially Aggregated Flows
                  V
   +----------------------------+
   |  key aggregation           |
   |   * reduce key to only     |
   |     destIPv4Address +      |
   |     destTransportPort,     |
   |   * count distinct sources |
   +----------------------------+
                  |
                  | Partially Aggregated Flows
                  V
       +----------------------------------------------+
       |  aggregate combination                       |
       |   * no-op (distinct sources already counted) |
       +----------------------------------------------+
                          |
                          V
                  Aggregated Flows

            Figure 22: Aggregation operations for source count

   The template for Aggregated Flows produced by this example is shown
   in Figure 23.

   destinationIPv4Address(12)[4]
   destinationTransportPort(11)[2]
   distinctCountOfSourceIPAddress(TBD4)[8]

                Figure 23: Output template for source count

   Interval distribution, in this case, merely discards the timestamp
   information from the Original Flows, and as such is not shown.



Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012               [Page 41]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


   Likewise, the value aggregation step simply discards the
   octetDeltaCount value field.  The key aggregation step reduces the
   key to the destinationIPv4Address and destinationTransportPort,
   counting the distinct source addresses.  Since this is essentially
   the output of this aggregation function, the aggregate combination
   operation is a no-op; the resulting Aggregated Flows are shown in
   Figure 24.

   destination 192.0.2.131:53      3 sources
   destination 198.51.100.2:80     1 source
   destination 198.51.100.2:443    3 sources
   destination 198.51.100.67:80    2 sources
   destination 198.51.100.68:80    2 sources
   destination 198.51.100.133:80   2 sources
   destination 198.51.100.3:80     3 sources
   destination 198.51.100.4:80     2 sources
   destination 198.51.100.17:80    1 source
   destination 198.51.100.69:443   1 source

               Figure 24: Aggregated flows for source count

8.4.  Traffic Time-Series per Source with Counter Distribution

   Returning to the example in Section 8.1, note that our source data
   contains some flows with durations longer than the imposed interval
   of five minutes.  The default method for dealing with such flows is
   to account them to the interval containing the flow's start time.

   In this example, the same data is aggregated using the same
   arrangement of operations and the same output template as the as in
   Section 8.1, but using a different counter distribution policy,
   Simple Uniform Distribution, as described in Section 5.1.1.  In order
   to do this, the Exporting Process first exports the Aggregate Counter
   Distribution Options Template, as in Figure 25.

   templateId(12)[2]{scope}
   valueDistribtutionMethod(TBD10)[1]

        Figure 25: Aggregate Counter Distribution Options Template

   This is followed by an Aggregate Counter Distribution Record
   described by this Template; assuming the output template in Figure 10
   has ID 257, this would appear as in Figure 26.

   templateId 257: valueDistributionMethod 4 (Simple Uniform)

             Figure 26: Aggregate Counter Distribution Record




Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012               [Page 42]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


   [EDITOR'S NOTE: redo these in boxdiagrams?]

   Following metadata export, the aggregation steps follow as before.
   However, two long flows are distributed across multiple invervals in
   the interval imposition step, as indicated with "*" in Figure 27.
   Note the uneven distribution of the three-interval, 11200-octet flow
   into three Partially Aggregated Flows of 3733, 3733, and 3734 octets;
   this ensures no cumulative error is injected by the interval
   distribution step.

  9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.2:47113   -> 192.0.2.131:53   (17)   119
  9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.2:22153   -> 192.0.2.131:53   (17)    83
  9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.2:52420   -> 198.51.100.2:443  (6)  1637
  9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.3:56047   -> 192.0.2.131:53   (17)   111
  9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.3:41183   -> 198.51.100.67:80  (6) 16838
  9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.2:17606   -> 198.51.100.68:80  (6) 11538
  9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.3:47113   -> 192.0.2.131:53   (17)   119
  9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.3:48458   -> 198.51.100.133:80 (6)  2973
  9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.4:61295   -> 198.51.100.2:443  (6)  8350
  9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 203.0.113.3:41256 -> 198.51.100.133:80 (6)   778
  9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 203.0.113.3:51662 -> 198.51.100.3:80   (6)   883
* 9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.2:37581   -> 198.51.100.2:80   (6)  7710
* 9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 203.0.113.3:39586 -> 198.51.100.17:80  (6)  3733
  9:05:00.000-9:10:00.000 203.0.113.3:52572 -> 198.51.100.2:443  (6)  1637
  9:05:00.000-9:10:00.000 203.0.113.3:49914 -> 197.51.100.133:80 (6)   561
  9:05:00.000-9:10:00.000 192.0.2.2:50824   -> 198.51.100.2:443  (6)  1899
  9:05:00.000-9:10:00.000 192.0.2.3:34597   -> 198.51.100.3:80   (6)  1284
  9:05:00.000-9:10:00.000 203.0.113.3:58907 -> 198.51.100.4:80   (6)  2670
* 9:05:00.000-9:10:00.000 192.0.2.2:37581   -> 198.51.100.2:80   (6)  7710
* 9:05:00.000-9:10:00.000 203.0.113.3:39586 -> 198.51.100.17:80  (6)  3733
  9:10:00.000-9:15:00.000 192.0.2.4:22478   -> 192.0.2.131:53   (17)    75
  9:10:00.000-9:15:00.000 192.0.2.4:49513   -> 198.51.100.68:80  (6)  3374
  9:10:00.000-9:15:00.000 192.0.2.4:64832   -> 198.51.100.67:80  (6)   138
  9:10:00.000-9:15:00.000 192.0.2.3:60833   -> 198.51.100.69:443 (6)  2325
* 9:10:00.000-9:15:00.000 203.0.113.3:39586 -> 198.51.100.17:80  (6)  3734
  9:10:00.000-9:15:00.000 192.0.2.2:19638   -> 198.51.100.3:80   (6)  2869
  9:10:00.000-9:15:00.000 192.0.2.3:40429   -> 198.51.100.4:80   (6) 18289

   Figure 27: Distirbuted interval imposition for time series per source

   Subsequent steps are as in Section 8.1; the results, to be exported
   using Figure 10, are shown in Figure 28, with Aggregated Flows
   differing from the previous example indicated by "*".








Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012               [Page 43]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


   * 9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.2    21087
     9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.3    20041
     9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 192.0.2.4     8350
   * 9:00:00.000-9:05:00.000 203.0.113.3   9394
   * 9:05:00.000-9:10:00.000 192.0.2.2     9609
     9:05:00.000-9:10:00.000 192.0.2.3     1284
   * 9:05:00.000-9:10:00.000 203.0.113.3   8601
     9:10:00.000-9:15:00.000 192.0.2.2     2869
     9:10:00.000-9:15:00.000 192.0.2.3    20594
     9:10:00.000-9:15:00.000 192.0.2.4     3587
   * 9:10:00.000-9:15:00.000 203.0.113.3   3734

    Figure 28: Aggregated Flows for time series per source with counter
                               distribution


9.  Security Considerations

   This document specifies the operation of an Intermediate Aggregation
   Process with the IPFIX Protocol; the Security Considerations for the
   protocol itself in Section 11 [RFC-EDITOR NOTE: verify section
   number] of [I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis] therefore apply.  In
   the common case that aggregation is performed on a Mediator, the
   Security Considerations for Mediators in Section 9 of [RFC6183] apply
   as well.

   As mentioned in Section 3, certain aggregation operations may tend to
   have an anyonymizing effect on flow data by obliterating sensitive
   identifiers.  Aggregation may also be combined with anonymization
   within a Mediator, or as part of a chain of Mediators, to further
   leverage this effect.  In any case in which an Intermediate
   Aggregation Process is applied as part of a data anonymization or
   protection scheme, or is used together with anonymization as
   described in [RFC6235], the Security Considerations in Section 9 of
   [RFC6235] apply.


10.  IANA Considerations

   This document specifies the creation of new IPFIX Information
   Elements in the IPFIX Information Element registry located at
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix, as defined in Section 7 above.
   IANA has assigned Information Element numbers to these Information
   Elements, and entered them into the registry.

   [NOTE for IANA: The text TBDn should be replaced with the respective
   assigned Information Element numbers where they appear in this
   document.  Note that the deltaFlowCount Information Element has been



Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012               [Page 44]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


   assigned the number 3, as it is compatible with the corresponding
   existing (reserved) NetFlow v9 Information Element.  Other
   Information Element numbers should be assigned outside the NetFlow V9
   compatibility range, as these Information Elements are not supported
   by NetFlow V9.]


11.  Acknowledgments

   Special thanks to Elisa Boschi for early work on the concepts laid
   out in this document.  Thanks to Lothar Braun and Christian Henke for
   their reviews.  This work is materially supported by the European
   Union Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement 257315
   (DEMONS).


12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis]
              Claise, B. and B. Trammell, "Specification of the IP Flow
              Information eXport (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of IP
              Traffic Flow Information",
              draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis-00 (work in
              progress), November 2011.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

12.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3917]  Quittek, J., Zseby, T., Claise, B., and S. Zander,
              "Requirements for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)",
              RFC 3917, October 2004.

   [RFC5103]  Trammell, B. and E. Boschi, "Bidirectional Flow Export
              Using IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 5103,
              January 2008.

   [RFC5153]  Boschi, E., Mark, L., Quittek, J., Stiemerling, M., and P.
              Aitken, "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Implementation
              Guidelines", RFC 5153, April 2008.

   [RFC5470]  Sadasivan, G., Brownlee, N., Claise, B., and J. Quittek,
              "Architecture for IP Flow Information Export", RFC 5470,
              March 2009.




Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012               [Page 45]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


   [RFC5472]  Zseby, T., Boschi, E., Brownlee, N., and B. Claise, "IP
              Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Applicability", RFC 5472,
              March 2009.

   [RFC5476]  Claise, B., Johnson, A., and J. Quittek, "Packet Sampling
              (PSAMP) Protocol Specifications", RFC 5476, March 2009.

   [RFC5610]  Boschi, E., Trammell, B., Mark, L., and T. Zseby,
              "Exporting Type Information for IP Flow Information Export
              (IPFIX) Information Elements", RFC 5610, July 2009.

   [RFC5655]  Trammell, B., Boschi, E., Mark, L., Zseby, T., and A.
              Wagner, "Specification of the IP Flow Information Export
              (IPFIX) File Format", RFC 5655, October 2009.

   [RFC5835]  Morton, A. and S. Van den Berghe, "Framework for Metric
              Composition", RFC 5835, April 2010.

   [RFC5982]  Kobayashi, A. and B. Claise, "IP Flow Information Export
              (IPFIX) Mediation: Problem Statement", RFC 5982,
              August 2010.

   [RFC6183]  Kobayashi, A., Claise, B., Muenz, G., and K. Ishibashi,
              "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Mediation: Framework",
              RFC 6183, April 2011.

   [RFC6235]  Boschi, E. and B. Trammell, "IP Flow Anonymization
              Support", RFC 6235, May 2011.

   [I-D.ietf-ipfix-mediation-protocol]
              Claise, B., Kobayashi, A., and B. Trammell, "Specification
              of the Protocol for IPFIX Mediation",
              draft-ietf-ipfix-mediation-protocol-00 (work in progress),
              December 2011.

   [I-D.ietf-ipfix-ie-doctors]
              Claise, B. and B. Trammell, "Guidelines for Authors and
              Reviewers of IPFIX Information Elements",
              draft-ietf-ipfix-ie-doctors-01 (work in progress),
              February 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-ipfix-configuration-model]
              Muenz, G., Claise, B., and P. Aitken, "Configuration Data
              Model for IPFIX and PSAMP",
              draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model-10 (work in
              progress), July 2011.

   [I-D.ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech]



Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012               [Page 46]


Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              February 2012


              Zseby, T. and L. Peluso, "Flow Selection Techniques",
              draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech-09 (work in
              progress), November 2011.

   [iana-ipfix-assignments]
              Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "IP Flow Information
              Export Information Elements
              (http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xml)".


Authors' Addresses

   Brian Trammell
   Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich
   Gloriastrasse 35
   8092 Zurich
   Switzerland

   Phone: +41 44 632 70 13
   Email: trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch


   Arno Wagner
   Consecom AG
   Bleicherweg 64a
   8002 Zurich
   Switzerland

   Email: arno@wagner.name


   Benoit Claise
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   De Kleetlaan 6a b1
   1831 Diagem
   Belgium

   Phone: +32 2 704 5622
   Email: bclaise@cisco.com












Trammell, et al.         Expires August 30, 2012               [Page 47]


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