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

Versions: 00 01

   Internet Draft                                            J. Quittek
   Document: draft-quittek-psamp-ipfix-01.txt           NEC Europe Ltd.
   Expires: August 2003                                       B. Claise
                                                          Cisco Systems
                                                          February 2003


                On the Relationship between PSAMP and IPFIX

                   <draft-quittek-psamp-ipfix-01.txt>


Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026.  Internet-Drafts are
   working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its
   areas, and its Working Groups.  Note that other groups may also
   distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
   months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
   at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
   reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   Distribution of this document is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This memo discusses the relationship between the packet sampling
   (PSAMP) Working Group and the IP flow information export (IPFIX)
   Working Group.  The goals of writing this memo are: avoiding
   duplication of work, increase mutual benefits between the groups,
   and harmonize the documents and standards developed by the groups.


Quittek et. al.         Expires - August 2003                [Page 1]


                  <draft-quittek-psamp-ipfix-01.txt>     February 2003


   Therefore, potential overlap of both group's activities is analyzed,
   activities in both groups that potentially complement each other are
   pointed out, and common issues are listed that should be harmonized
   between the groups.


Table of Contents

   1. Introduction...................................................2
   2. Working Group Goals............................................3
     2.1 IPFIX Goals................................................3
     2.2 PSAMP Goals................................................4
   3. Architecture...................................................5
     3.1 IPFIX Architecture.........................................5
     3.2 PSAMP Architecture.........................................6
   4. PSAMP and IPFIX Comparison.....................................7
     4.1 Architectural Comparison...................................7
     4.2 Conceptual Comparison......................................8
   5. Potential Overlap, Complement, and Harmonization...............9
     5.1 Terminology................................................9
     5.2 Packet selection and sampling model........................9
        5.2.1 PSAMP as an IPFIX component: packet sampling.........9
        5.2.2 PSAMP as an IPFIX component: packet selection.......10
     5.3 IPFIX export for PSAMP....................................10
        5.3.1 Information Model...................................11
        5.3.2 Export Protocol.....................................11
     5.4 Configuration.............................................11
   6. Security Considerations.......................................12
   7. References....................................................12
   8. Acknwoldgements...............................................13
   9. AuthorÆs Addresses............................................13


1. Introduction

   The packet sampling (PSAMP) Working Group and the IP flow
   information export (IPFIX) Working Group both aim at standardizing
   technology for observing traffic from network devices and for
   exporting some part of the observation. Also, both Working Groups
   consider packet sampling as a component of their technology. While
   for the IPFIX Working Group packet sampling is just one out of many
   components considered, it is the focus of the PSAMP Working Group.

   This memo discusses the relationship between the two Working Groups.
   The goals of writing this memo are:




Quittek et. al.         Expires - August 2003                [Page 2]


                  <draft-quittek-psamp-ipfix-01.txt>     February 2003


      - avoiding duplication of work,

      - increase mutual benefits between the groups,

      - harmonize the documents and standards developed by the groups.

   In order to achieve this, the following issues are analyzed:

      - potential overlap of both group's activities,

      - potential mutual complements between the groups,

      - common issues that should be harmonized.

   The analysis start with brief summaries of each Working Group's goal
   and a comparison of the respective architectures.


2. Working Group Goals

   The following is a brief summary of the goals of the two Working
   Groups.  A more detailed description can be found in the respective
   Working Group charters at http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/psamp-
   charter.html and http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ipfix-
   charter.html.

2.1 IPFIX Goals

   The IP flow information export (IPFIX) Working Group was established
   in October 2001 with the goal to select a protocol for IP flow
   information export out of devices measuring network traffic. The
   Working Group's charter lists the following steps:

      - Define the notion of a "standard IP flow".

      - Devise data encodings for IP flows.

      - Consider the notion of IP flow information export based upon
        packet sampling.

      - Identify and address any security privacy concerns affecting
        flow data.

      - Specify the transport mapping for carrying IP flow information


Quittek et. al.         Expires - August 2003                [Page 3]


                  <draft-quittek-psamp-ipfix-01.txt>     February 2003


        (IETF approved congestion-aware transport protocol)

      - Ensure that the flow export system is reliable and efficient
        (in that it will minimize the likelihood of flow data being
        lost due to resource constraints in the exporter or receiver
        and to accurately report such loss if it occurs)

   The output of the group will be structured into four documents:

      o Requirements for IP flow information export

      o IP flow information architecture

      o IP flow information export information model

      o IP flow information export applicability

   The protocol itself should not be developed by the Working Group but
   selected out of already existing protocols or protocols developed
   for this purpose externally of the IETF. Once the protocol will be
   selected out, small modifications will be brought to it to make it
   fully compliant to the IPFIX requirement draft.

   The focus of the Working Group is on improving and standardizing
   existing state-of-the-art technology and common practice.


2.2 PSAMP Goals

   The packet sampling (PSAMP) Working Group was established in August
   2002 with the goals of

      - specifying a set of selection operations by which packets are
        sampled.

      - specifying the information that is to be made available for
        reporting on sampled packets.

      - describing protocols by which information on sampled packets is
        reported to applications.

      - describing protocols by which packet selection and reporting
        configured.



Quittek et. al.         Expires - August 2003                [Page 4]


                  <draft-quittek-psamp-ipfix-01.txt>     February 2003



   In contrast to IPFIX, the PSAMP Working Group is chartered to
   develop new technology that is not already widely available and for
   which a common practice does not exist, so far.

   The output of the group will be structured into five documents:

      o Framework document

      o Packet selector and packet information document

      o Report format and report stream format document

      o Export and requirements for collectors document

      o MIB document

3. Architecture

   For both Working Groups, architectures are still under definition.
   This memo tries to sketch the basic architectures as they are
   currently being discussed in [IPFIX-REQ],[IPFIX-ARCH],[PSAMP-FRM],
   and [PSAMP-PSS]. These architecture snapshots are used in the
   discussion of potential overlaps and complements further below. It
   should be noted that during architecture development, both
   architectures might evolve such that some of the arguments stated
   below in this memo do not hold anymore.


3.1 IPFIX Architecture

   Please note that the [IPFIX-ARCH] draft has been put ôon holdö until
   the [IPFIX-REQ] is finalized and the base IPFIX protocol has been
   chosen amongst the candidate protocols. As a consequence, the IPIFX
   architecture paragraph below is not based on [IPFIX-ARCH] but on
   [IPFIX-REQ].

   The IPFIX architecture contains six main components: observation
   point, metering process, flow records, exporting process, export
   protocol, and collecting process [IPFIX-REQ].

   At the observation point, IP packets are observed. Observed packets
   are metered by the metering process. Metering results are stored in



Quittek et. al.         Expires - August 2003                [Page 5]


                  <draft-quittek-psamp-ipfix-01.txt>     February 2003


   flow records. The exporting process exports information stored in
   flow records to the collecting process.

         +------+ packet +-------+ flow   +-------+ flow    +-------+
         |obser-| headers|meter- | records|export-| records |collec-|
         |vation+------->|ing    +------->|ing    +-------->|ting   |
         |point |        |process|        |process| IPFIX   |process|
         +------+        +-------+        +-------+ protocol+-------+

               Figure 1: Sketch of the basic IPFIX architecture

   Possible entity relationships between these components are not
   completely defined, yet. However, in general the assumption holds
   that each component may have several instances.

   According to [IPFIX-REQ], the metering process can be divided into
   packet header capturing, timestamping, classifying, and maintaining
   flow records. Before any of these functions, sampling may be
   applied.

                              packet header capturing
                                        |
                                   timestamping
                                        |
                                        v
                                 +----->+
                                 |      |
                                 | classifying
                                 |      |
                                 +------+
                                        |
                             maintaining flow records
                                        |
                                        v

      Figure 2: Functions of the metering process, from [IPFIX-REQ]


3.2 PSAMP Architecture

   PSAMP architecture development is even at an earlier stage than the
   IPFIX architecture.  Therefore, the potential changes until
   completion are potentially more significant.



Quittek et. al.         Expires - August 2003                [Page 6]


                  <draft-quittek-psamp-ipfix-01.txt>     February 2003



   Basically, the PSAMP architecture contains 6 main components, as
   defined in [PSAMP-FRM]: observation point, selection process, the
   reporting process (packet reports and report information), the
   export process and the collector. On the top of these components,
   the configuration management is clearly indicated as one of the
   charter goals.


                  +------------------------------------------+
             ---->|               Configuration              +<-----------+
                  +----+-----------------+---------------+---+            |
                       |                 |               |                |
                       v                 v               v                |
   +------+        +-------+        +-------+ packet +-------+ packet +---+---+
   |obser-| packet |select-| packet |report-| report |export | report |collec-|
   |vation+------->|ion    +------->|ing    +------->|process|------->|tor    |
   |point | header |process| header |process| report |       | report |       |
   +------+        +-------+        +-------+ info.  +-------+ info.  +-------+

               Figure 3: Sketch of the basic PSAMP architecture

   Packets headers (and some subsequent bytes of the packet, and
   encapsulating headers if present) are observed at the observation
   point and selected and/or sampled by the selection process. The
   selection process can be based on filtering, sampling, and/or
   hashing functions and for selecting packets.
   The generated per packet information, composed of the packet report
   and report information is reported by the reporting process before
   being exported by an export process to a collecting process.  The
   selection, reporting process and export process are configured
   either based on external input or by feedback from the collector.

   Again, entity relationships between these components are not clear,
   yet, but it can be assumed that each component may have multiple
   instances.

4. PSAMP and IPFIX Comparison


4.1 Architectural Comparison

   The basic structure of both architectures is quite similar, but
   there are three significant architectural differences that can be
   observed.



Quittek et. al.         Expires - August 2003                [Page 7]


                  <draft-quittek-psamp-ipfix-01.txt>     February 2003



   The first one contains the information that is gathered and
   exported. IPFIX produces and exports flow records containing
   information per flow. This information is created based on the
   observation of a potentially large number of packets. In contrast,
   PSAMP generates and exports information per packet. Consequently,
   the PSAMP architecture contains a selecting and sampling process
   where the IPFIX architecture uses a more complex metering process.

   The second difference concerns configuration. It is an explicit goal
   of the PSAMP Working Group to define ways of configuring the packet
   selecting and sampling process and the exporting process. For IPFIX,
   configuration of metering process and exporting process is mentioned
   in the requirements document, but there are no plans yet for
   standardizing IPFIX configuration.

   The next difference concerns the export(ing) process. The PSAMP
   charter specifices ôNetwork elements shall support multiple parallel
   packet samplers, each with independently configurable packet
   selectors, reports, report streams, and export.ö. There is one
   exporting process for all the metering process in most of the IPFIX,
   cases: the exception comes the ôSpecial Device Considerations
   sectionö. Anyway, this implies that a global congestion avoiding
   protocol is sufficient per metering process for IPFIX, while PSAMP
   requires this congestion avoiding protocol per packet sampler.


4.2 Conceptual Comparison

   The basic concept of IPFIX and PSAMP are quite similar: observing
   traffic from network devices and exporting some part of this
   observation. But there are three differences that can be observed.

   Both IPFIX metering process and PSAMP selection process can select
   observed packets based on packet header content and packet
   treatement. Nevertheless, the difference is that the PSAMP selection
   process can compute some values out of the observed packet, i.e a
   hash value. This hash value can be used as a selector by the
   selection process.

   Another difference between IPFIX and PSAMP is that PSAMP might
   report information about "subsequent bytes of the packet and




Quittek et. al.         Expires - August 2003                [Page 8]


                  <draft-quittek-psamp-ipfix-01.txt>     February 2003


   encapsulation headers if present" while IPFIX concentrates on
   reporting information on the IP packet header only.

5. Potential Overlap, Complement, and Harmonization


5.1 Terminology

   As the architecture sketches in Figures 1 and 3 show that there are
   several similarities between PSAMP and IPFIX. Both Working Groups
   address the same general subject of observing IP traffic, processing
   the observation, and exporting the obtained information.

   Therefore, it is desirable and appears to be quite feasible to agree
   on a common terminology to be used by both Working Groups.

5.2 Packet selection and sampling model

   The PSAMP Working Group already started developing a model for
   packet selection and packet sampling [PSAMP-PSS]. In the IPFIX
   Working Group this issue will probably not be specified in detail in
   any of the documents. They are mentioned implicitly or explicitly as
   functions of the IPFIX metering process, but the goal of IPFIX being
   to standardize the Flow Information eXport, the metering process is
   only briefly discussed; and only the metering process features that
   could influence the export protocol or information model are
   discussed (for example: metering process reliability or sampling).
   The IPFIX Working Group should consider using the PSAMP model when
   discussing packet selection and sampling. The PSAMP Working Group
   specification of sampling functions [PSAMP-PSS] should be re-used by
   the IPFIX Working Group for defining the sampling function of the
   metering process.


5.2.1 PSAMP as an IPFIX component: packet sampling

   The metering process of IPFIX (shown in Figure 2) contains capturing
   packet headers as first step. In case sampling is required, this
   function could be provided by a component implementing the PSAMP
   architecture.

                  sampled
         +------+ packet  +-------+ flow   +-------+ flow    +-------+
         |      | headers |meter- | records|export-| records |collec-|


Quittek et. al.         Expires - August 2003                [Page 9]


                  <draft-quittek-psamp-ipfix-01.txt>     February 2003


         |PSAMP +-------->|ing    +------->|ing    +-------->|ting   |
         |      |         |process|        |process| IPFIX   |process|
         +------+         +-------+        +-------+ protocol+-------+

   So the PSAMP architecture could be used as input for the IPFIX
   metering process, the IPFIX metering process serving as PSAMP
   collecting process. Whether we would use the export protocol itself
   to send the sampled packets headers to the IPFIX metering process or
   not (API for example), should be discussed. In both cases, the PSAMP
   component would perform the packet header capturing function and the
   sampling function of the IPFIX metering process, and potentially
   also the timestamping function.


5.2.2 PSAMP as an IPFIX component: packet selection


   The IPFIX architecture does not explicitly talk about packet
   selection, but the packet header classification function (for
   example filtering) of the IPFIX metering process implicitly includes
   the option of packet selection: for packet headers that cannot be
   matched to already existing flow records, a decision need to be made
   on whether or not to create a new flow record for this packet.

   An explicit packet selection performed by a PSAMP component could
   contribute to this function of the IPFIX metering process, for
   example by already filtering all packets for which no flow record
   would be generated.

                  filtered
         +------+ packet  +-------+ flow   +-------+ flow    +-------+
         |      | headers |meter- | records|export-| records |collec-|
         |PSAMP +-------->|ing    +------->|ing    +-------->|ting   |
         |      |         |process|        |process| IPFIX   |process|
         +------+         +-------+        +-------+ protocol+-------+


   The PSAMP component would also potentially perform the timestamping
   function.


5.3 IPFIX export for PSAMP




Quittek et. al.         Expires - August 2003               [Page 10]


                  <draft-quittek-psamp-ipfix-01.txt>     February 2003


   PSAMP needs to specify an information model, a data model, and a
   protocol for exporting packet information. This is similar to the
   task of IPFIX, where the same kind of specifications is required for
   the export of flow records. IPFIX already made good progress in
   specifying an information model [IPFIX-INFO] and the selection of a
   protocol is progressing.


5.3.1 Information Model

   Therefore, the PSAMP Working Group should discuss, whether or not
   output of the IPFIX Working Group can be used. The IPFIX flow
   information model may already include all information required for
   modeling packet information. The PSAMP Working Group could perform
   data modeling by just selecting a subset of the IPFIX data model to
   be used. If the IPFIX model would be fine in general for PSAMP, but
   a few packet attributes are missing, then it should be preferred to
   the IPFIX Working Group should be asked to extend their information
   model by the missing attributes instead of defining PSAMP extensions
   of the model (for example a new data type for the hash key, if a
   hash key is defined in the PSAMP Working Group).


5.3.2 Export Protocol

   If the IPFIX information model can be adopted by PSAMP, then there
   is potential to also use the IPFIX data model and protocol for
   PSAMP.
   In general, this should be possible, because an extreme case of a
   flow is a flow containing just a single packet. This is supported by
   IPFIX. Furthermore, [IPFIX-REQ] requests the IPFIX protocol to be
   flexible and extensible. The PSAMP Working Group should study the
   protocol selected as IPFIX protocol and discuss using it also as
   PSAMP protocol. Of course, it should be investigated carefully,
   whether or not there are PSAMP requirements not met by the IPFIX
   protocol.


5.4 Configuration

   For the IPFIX Working Group, a configuration protocol or a MIB
   module definition is out of scope for now. But for PSAMP, this is
   explicitly mentioned by the charter. It is not clear, whether in the



Quittek et. al.         Expires - August 2003               [Page 11]


                  <draft-quittek-psamp-ipfix-01.txt>     February 2003


   future there will be a desire to standardize IPFIX configuration, as
   a second phase of the Working Group work. There might be reason not
   to so, for example allowing implementors to have differentiators for
   their products. However, if the IPFIX Working Group ever considers
   standardizing consideration, it should make sure, that IPFIX
   configuration will be consistent with PSAMP configuration. This
   applies to the configuration of sampling and packet selection as
   well as to the selection of attributes to be exported, the
   specification of data collectors to export information to, the
   export transmission rate, and the method of congestion handling (if
   configurable).

6. Security Considerations

   If the PSAMP Working Group discusses to use the IPFIX protocol also
   for PSAMP, it should study carefully, whether or not the PSAMP
   security requirements are stricter than the IPFIX security
   requirements and whether all PSAMP security requirements are covered
   by the IPFIX protocol.

7. References

   [IPFIX-REQ]
            Quittek, J., Zseby, T., Claise, B., Zander, S., Carle, G.,
            Norseth, K.C., "Requirements for IP Flow Information
            Export", work in progress, <draft-ietf-ipfix-reqs-09.txt>,
            February 2003.

   [IPFIX-ARCH]
            Norseth, K.C., Sadasivan, G., "Architecture Model for IP
            Flow Information Export", work in progress, <draft-ietf-
            ipfix-architecture-02.txt>, June 2002.

   [IPFIX-INFO]
            Norseth, K.C., Calato, P., "Data Model for IP Flow
            Information Export", work in progress, <draft-ietf-ipfix-
            data-00.txt>, February 2002.

   [PSAMP-FRM]
            Duffield, N., Grossglauser, M., Rexford, J., Chiou, D.,
            Marimuthu, P., Sadasivan, G. "A Framework for Passive
            Packet Measurement", work in progress,
            <draft-ietf-psamp-framework-01.txt>, November 2002.



Quittek et. al.         Expires - August 2003               [Page 12]


                  <draft-quittek-psamp-ipfix-01.txt>     February 2003



   [PSAMP-PSS]
            Zseby, T., Molina, M., Raspall, F., "Sampling and Filtering
            Techniques for IP Packet Selection", work in progress,
            <draft-ietf-psamp-sample-tech-00.txt>, October 2002.


8. Acknowledgements

   We would like to thank Tanja Zseby for her valuable technical
   feedback.

9. AuthorÆs Addresses

   Juergen Quittek
   NEC Europe Ltd.
   Network Laboratories
   Adenauerplatz 6
   69115 Heidelberg
   Germany
   Phone: +49 6221 90511-15
   Email: quittek@ccrle.nec.de

   Benoit Claise
   Cisco Systems
   De Kleetlaan 6a b1
   1831 Diegem
   Belgium
   Phone: +32 2 704 5622
   Email: bclaise@cisco.com

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished
   toothers, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain
   it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied,
   published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction
   of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this
   paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works.
   However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such
   as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet
   Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the


Quittek et. al.         Expires - August 2003               [Page 13]


                  <draft-quittek-psamp-ipfix-01.txt>     February 2003


   purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the
   procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process
   must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages
   other than English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.



































Quittek et. al.         Expires - August 2003               [Page 14]


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