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

Versions: 00 draft-ietf-ipfix-testing

IPFIX Working Group                                           C. Schmoll
Internet-Draft                                Fraunhofer Institute Fokus
Expires: August 17, 2006                                       P. Aitken
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                       February 13, 2006


              IP Flow Information Exchange (IPFIX) Testing
                   draft-schmoll-ipfix-testing-00.txt

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 17, 2006.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

   This document presents a list of tests which implementers of IP Flow
   Information Export (IPFIX) compliant systems are encouraged to
   perform on their IPFIX system.  This document has been created to
   help implementers test the functionality of their IPFIX exporter
   and/or collector component.  The goal of these tests is to ensure
   that all important functions are covered by tests and thereby to gain
   a level of confidence in the system which allows the implementer to



Schmoll & Aitken         Expires August 17, 2006                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft         IPFIX Test Recommendations          February 2006


   perform interoperabilty or plug tests with other IPFIX systems.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.2.  Document Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.3.  Related Documents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  Test Specifications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.1.  Exporter/Collector Connectivity Tests  . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.1.1.  Connectivity Tests between Exporter and Collector  . .  7
     3.2.  Data Template and Data Transmission Tests  . . . . . . . .  7
       3.2.1.  Transmission of Simple Data Template and Data  . . . .  7
       3.2.2.  Transmission of Data Template with variable-length
               IEs and Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.2.3.  Flowsets with Padding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.3.  IE Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       3.3.1.  Enterprise-specific IEs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       3.3.2.  Reduced-size Encoding of IEs . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       3.3.3.  Multiple use of the same IE in one Template  . . . . .  8
     3.4.  Options Templates  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       3.4.1.  Using any IEs as Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       3.4.2.  Using multiple Scopes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       3.4.3.  Metering Process (MP) Statistics Option Template . . .  9
       3.4.4.  Metering Process (MP) Reliability Statistics
               Option Template  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       3.4.5.  Exporting Process (EP) Reliability Statistics
               Option Template  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       3.4.6.  Flow Keys Option Template  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       3.4.7.  Template Withdrawal Message  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     3.5.  Stress/Load Tests  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       3.5.1.  Large Number of Records for one Template . . . . . . . 11
       3.5.2.  High Rate of incoming Data Records . . . . . . . . . . 11
       3.5.3.  Large Templates with high Number of IEs  . . . . . . . 11
       3.5.4.  Many new Templates within Data Template timeout
               interval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       3.5.5.  Multiple Exporters sending to one Collector  . . . . . 11
       3.5.6.  Export from one Exporter to multiple Collectors  . . . 11
     3.6.  Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       3.6.1.  Temporary Network Disconnect . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       3.6.2.  Exporter Termination and Restart during Data
               Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       3.6.3.  Collector Termination and Restart during Data
               Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       3.6.4.  Incorrect Template Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       3.6.5.  Export of defective IPFIX Data record  . . . . . . . . 13



Schmoll & Aitken         Expires August 17, 2006                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft         IPFIX Test Recommendations          February 2006


       3.6.6.  Export of non-matching Template and Data . . . . . . . 13
       3.6.7.  Incorrect Set IDs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       3.6.8.  Flowsets with Invalid Padding  . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       3.6.9.  Re-using the same Template ID inside the Template
               Expiry Time  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       3.6.10. Re-using the same Template ID after the Template
               Expiry Time  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       3.6.11. Re-sending an existing template ID without
               withdrawal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   4.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   5.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 17






































Schmoll & Aitken         Expires August 17, 2006                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft         IPFIX Test Recommendations          February 2006


1.  Introduction

   The IPFIX protocol has been developed for the purpose of exporting IP
   flow information from devices such as routers or measurement stations
   to mediation, accounting, and network management systems.  It is
   intended for the purposes of Internet research, QoS and traffic
   measurement, attack and intrusion detection reporting, accounting,
   and billing.

   The IPFIX architecture [I-D.ietf-ipfix-architecture] defines the
   different components which are involved in this data export process.
   For a testable IPFIX software toolkit one needs at least the IPFIX
   exporter and the IPFIX collector component.  The exporter component
   communicates information regarding flows from a location close to the
   point of measurement in the network to the collector via SCTP, TCP,
   or UDP.  The collector may then e.g., store this data into a database
   or transfer it directly to an application for further processing.

   An implementation of these IPFIX components in software, firmware, or
   hardware needs to be tested thoroughly in order to check its
   robustness and the conformity to the IPFIX drafts it is based on.
   This document suggests tests which should be run in order to check
   the system and to gain a high confidence in the conformity,
   robustness, and correct behavior of such implementation.

1.1.  Motivation

   The main driving force for preparing this document is the observation
   that protocols for data exchange often fail to work properly when
   implementations from different companies or organizations are in use
   together.  In many cases this even holds true when tests had
   previously been performed successfully using an exporting and
   collecting process from a single implementer.  The tests listed here
   can form a valuable common basis for implementers involved in
   interoperability testing when all of them use these tests to check
   their own exporter and collector first.

1.2.  Document Scope

   This document lists tests intended to be performed between an
   implementation of an IPFIX exporter and an IPFIX collector.  For some
   tests multiple instances of each of those components are involved.
   The tests cover basic application connectivity, export of template
   and data records, high load, and error condition situations.

1.3.  Related Documents

   This draft refers to the following draft documents: "Information



Schmoll & Aitken         Expires August 17, 2006                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft         IPFIX Test Recommendations          February 2006


   Model for IP Flow Information Export" [I-D.ietf-ipfix-info] and
   "IPFIX Protocol Specification" [I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol].

















































Schmoll & Aitken         Expires August 17, 2006                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft         IPFIX Test Recommendations          February 2006


2.  Terminology

   The terminology used in this document is fully aligned with the
   terminology defined in [I-D.ietf-ipfix-architecture] and [I-D.ietf-
   ipfix-protocol].

   In the remainder of this document IE means Information Element.

   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].








































Schmoll & Aitken         Expires August 17, 2006                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft         IPFIX Test Recommendations          February 2006


3.  Test Specifications

   The following tests SHOULD be performed using an IPFIX exporting
   process on one host and an IPFIX collecting process on a different
   host.  The network configuration and software component setup SHOULD
   be recorded.  The test results SHOULD be recorded per test performed.

3.1.  Exporter/Collector Connectivity Tests

   This section lists the basic tests which must succeed as a
   precondition for the more complex tests in later sections.

3.1.1.  Connectivity Tests between Exporter and Collector

   Setup one exporting and one collecting process.  Configure the
   exporting process to send to the collecting process.  Configure a
   minimal data set so that the exporter will initiate a connection.
   Detect whether a connection was established (in case of SCTP and TCP)
   and whether data was exchanged.  The transmitted data might be
   observed on-line with an appropriate tool such as Ethereal
   (www.ethereal.com).

   Perform the test for all the supported combinations of IPv4 and IPv6
   and UDP, SCTP, and TCP as transmission protocol.

3.2.  Data Template and Data Transmission Tests

   This section lists the important tests for checking the correct
   transmission of IPFIX templates and data sets.

3.2.1.  Transmission of Simple Data Template and Data

   Create and export an IPFIX data template and data record for a few
   fixed-size IEs over the transports in Section 3.1.  Verify the
   correct reception and decoding of the template and data.  Use various
   IEs so that each data type (octet, unsigned16, unsigned32 ...) is
   used in at least one test.

3.2.2.  Transmission of Data Template with variable-length IEs and Data

   Create and export data templates and data records for a mixture of
   fixed-sized and variable-length IEs over the transports in
   Section 3.1.  The various templates should contain:

   o  a single variable-length IE

   o  a single variable length IE followed by a fixed length IE




Schmoll & Aitken         Expires August 17, 2006                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft         IPFIX Test Recommendations          February 2006


   o  a fixed length IE followed by a variable length IE

   o  multiple variable-length IEs

   Verify the correct reception and decoding of all templates and data.

3.2.3.  Flowsets with Padding

   Create and send data records which contain padding (i.e. which use
   the PaddingOctets IE).  Test with legal and illegal padding sizes
   (i.e. padding to boundaries other than 4 or 8 octets).  Make sure the
   implementation captures the (illegal) case where the data records are
   so short that the padding is equal to or longer than the length of
   the record, so the padding might otherwise be interpreted as another
   record (e.g. 1 bytes TOS plus 3 bytes of padding).  Test fixed-size
   padding (e.g. 12 bytes of data plus 2 bytes of padding) and variable-
   length padding (e.g. export a string and a variable number of padding
   bytes afterwards to align the next data element to a 4 byte
   boundary).

3.3.  IE Tests

   This section lists the tests which cover the use of IEs and the
   correct transfer of IPFIX Options Templates.

3.3.1.  Enterprise-specific IEs

   Export a template and data set which makes use of Enterprise-specific
   IEs as defined in [I-D.ietf-ipfix-info] and check correct reception
   and decoding.  Verify correct reception of IEs which are unknown to
   the collector.  Ensure that such IEs are not silently discarded.

3.3.2.  Reduced-size Encoding of IEs

   Generate export and test reception of IEs which have been transmitted
   using a reduced-size encoding as defined in section 6.2 of [I-D.ietf-
   ipfix-protocol].  Make sure that the collector is aware of the real
   size of each IE and not only the length used for its transmission.

3.3.3.  Multiple use of the same IE in one Template

   Create and export a data template containing multiple instances of
   the same IE, either consecutively or with other IEs in between.
   Verify that the collector is able to parse the message contents and
   stores all values received for all the IEs which appeared multiple
   times in the template definition.





Schmoll & Aitken         Expires August 17, 2006                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft         IPFIX Test Recommendations          February 2006


3.4.  Options Templates

   This section lists the tests which cover the use of IEs and the
   correct transfer of IPFIX Options Templates.

3.4.1.  Using any IEs as Scope

   Options Templates contain a scope field which gives the context of
   the reported IEs in the corresponding Data Records.  The scope is an
   IE specified in [I-D.ietf-ipfix-info].

   Export Options Template Records containing various different IEs in
   their scope fields, and export a data record using each template.
   Verify the correct reception of the templates and data records at the
   collector.  Verify whether the collector accepts an unknown IE in the
   scope field.  Verify whether the collector accepts an Enterprise
   specific IE in the scope field.

   The Scope Field Count MAY NOT be zero.  Verify that the collector
   does not accept an Options Template with no scope fields.

3.4.2.  Using multiple Scopes

   Multiple scope fields MAY be present in the Options Template Record.
   If the order of the scope fields is relevant, the order of the scope
   fields MUST be used.

   Export an Options Template Record containing multiple scope fields,
   and a data record using that template.  Verify the correct reception
   of the template and data record at the collector.

   Note that the Scope Field Count MAY NOT be zero.  Verify that the
   collector does not accept an Options Template with no scope fields.

3.4.3.  Metering Process (MP) Statistics Option Template

   Check that the IPFIX collector can handle the reception and decoding
   of options template records in general and that it is able to receive
   and decode MP statistic option data records as defined in section 4.1
   of [I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol].  Note that not all fields listed there
   might be present in a received MP statistic option data record.  Also
   check that the optional additional Scope Field is supported by the
   implementation.

3.4.4.  Metering Process (MP) Reliability Statistics Option Template

   Check that the IPFIX collector can handle the reception and decoding
   of MP reliability option data records as defined in section 4.2 of



Schmoll & Aitken         Expires August 17, 2006                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft         IPFIX Test Recommendations          February 2006


   [I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol].  Note that not all fields listed there
   might be present in a received MP reliability option data record.
   Also check that the optional additional Scope Field is supported by
   the implementation.

3.4.5.  Exporting Process (EP) Reliability Statistics Option Template

   Check that the IPFIX collector can handle the reception and decoding
   of EP reliability option data records as defined in section 4.3 of
   [I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol].  Note that not all fields listed there
   might be present in a received EP reliability option data record.

3.4.6.  Flow Keys Option Template

   Check that the IPFIX collector can handle the reception and decoding
   of flow key option template data records as defined in section 4.4 of
   [I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol].  Note that not all fields listed there
   might be present in a received EP reliability option data record.
   Make sure that the implementation also properly handles the case
   where the transmitted templateId incorrectly refers to a non-existing
   template.

3.4.7.  Template Withdrawal Message

   Send a template withdrawal message for (a) a template which had been
   sent before, (b) for a template which has never been sent, and (c)
   for a template which was previously sent and already withdrawn.
   Check correct behavior of the collector when receiving data records
   before and after the template withdrawal.  IPFIX template management
   is defined in chapter 8 of [I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol].

3.5.  Stress/Load Tests

   Stress tests are used to check correct behavior and robustness of an
   IPFIX collector implementation when a number of data records arrive
   very quickly.  This is especially important when IPFIX over UDP is
   used, since in that case a slow collector must not block the IPFIX
   exporter(s) from sending, since UDP is not congestion aware.  Such
   stress tests may not be applicable to the devices being tested.  The
   tests may be dependant upon the hardware and transports technology in
   use.  Therefore the tests may need to be scaled up or down to meet
   the needs of the particular implementation.  However, the implementer
   SHOULD verify that his implementation is stable under excessive
   traffic conditions, for whatever definition of "excessive" applies at
   their intended installation.

   The implementer MUST verify the correct operation of his exporter
   and/or collector when the collector is incapable of processing



Schmoll & Aitken         Expires August 17, 2006               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft         IPFIX Test Recommendations          February 2006


   records at the rate which they are received.

3.5.1.  Large Number of Records for one Template

   Export many records to the collecting process.  Depending on what
   that process does (save to file, store to database, analyze the data)
   the collector may use up a lot of memory.  Verify that if it runs out
   of memory, it terminates the connection gracefully but remains
   available to receive data exported on other connections.

3.5.2.  High Rate of incoming Data Records

   If possible, export to the collector with an increasing records per
   second export rate.  For TCP or SCTP export this should stall the
   exporter once the collector becomes fully loaded.  For UDP export,
   the collector should drop records gracefully as it becomes
   overloaded.

3.5.3.  Large Templates with high Number of IEs

   Create and export templates with the maximum possible number of IEs.
   Create and export matching data records.  Note that, for the
   implementation, these data records might be smaller or larger than
   the template records depending on the type of IEs inside and the
   presence of variable-length IEs.

3.5.4.  Many new Templates within Data Template timeout interval

   Create and export a large number of data templates using different
   template IDs, to stress test the collector's memory consumption.
   Ensure that the collector gracefully discards data templates (i.e.
   logs warnings) if it's running in a system with insufficient memory
   resources.

3.5.5.  Multiple Exporters sending to one Collector

   Setup multiple exporting processes to export data templates and data
   to the same collecting process at the same time.  Observe correct
   reception and decoding of all the information at the collector.
   Check that no exporter stalls or disconnects completely.

3.5.6.  Export from one Exporter to multiple Collectors

   If possible, configure the exporter to export data records in
   parallel to different IPFIX collectors.  Use simple and complex
   templates and/or a mixture of them and check for correct reception.





Schmoll & Aitken         Expires August 17, 2006               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft         IPFIX Test Recommendations          February 2006


3.6.  Error Handling

   This section lists and describes a number of problems which might
   occur in either the network or data transmission or related to wrong
   information encoding, and which the IPFIX system must be capable of
   handling in a graceful way.  It is intended to test the robustness
   and fault tolerance of the IPFIX system.

3.6.1.  Temporary Network Disconnect

   Due to network failures (either physical or logical, e.g. defective
   routing) the connectivity between an IPFIX exporter and collector
   might be disrupted.  The IPFIX system MUST be able to handle such
   events in a deterministic and graceful way if they should occur
   during an IPFIX export.  When connection oriented transmission
   protocols (TCP/SCTP) are in use, such a failure may or may not be
   signaled to the exporter and collector by the operating system
   depending on the type of network adapter, driver software and
   operating system in use.  The effect might be the direct signaling of
   an error when IP packet read/write system functions are invoked
   (signaling connection reset by peer) or there might be an OS-
   dependant connection timeout.  An implementer should check the
   behavior of his/her IPFIX system upon such interruptions of data
   transmission.  For TCP- and SCTP-based connections, short disconnects
   and long disconnects should be tested.  For UDP-based data export
   there is no noticeable connection loss, but data received with non-
   consecutive sequence numbers indicates data loss and should be
   recognized and reported by the collector per section 3.1 of
   [I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol].

3.6.2.  Exporter Termination and Restart during Data Transmission

   An IPFIX collecting process might be confronted with a faulty
   exporter implementation which suddenly crashes, dropping any open
   connections.  The exporter may be restarted again soon after the
   crash.  Kill a running and exporting exporter process.  Check that
   the associated collector gracefully closes all connections associated
   to that exporter.  Start the exporting process again.  The collector
   must be able to correctly receive from the new exporter instance at
   the same source host.

3.6.3.  Collector Termination and Restart during Data Transmission

   An IPFIX exporting process might be confronted with a faulty
   collector implementation which suddenly crashes, dropping any open
   connections.  That collector may be restarted again soon after the
   crash.  Kill a running collector while collecting.  Check that the
   exporter gracefully closes all connections associated with that



Schmoll & Aitken         Expires August 17, 2006               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft         IPFIX Test Recommendations          February 2006


   collector.  Restart the collector.  Check that the exporter is able
   to export correctly to the new collector instance.

3.6.4.  Incorrect Template Records

   IPFIX Options Templates contain an overall Field Count and a Scope
   Field Count.  The Field Count is the number of all fields in the
   Option Template Record, including the Scope Fields.  The Scope Field
   Count MAY NOT be zero.

   Verify the collector's operation when it receives an options template
   where the Field Count is less than the Scope Field Count.

   Verify the collector's operation when it receives an options template
   where the Scope Field Count is zero.

3.6.5.  Export of defective IPFIX Data record

   Check that the collector successfully drops all those data records
   which are not correct IPFIX messages.  Potential errors include but
   are not limited to:

   o  IPFIX message too short

   o  illegal use of reduced size encoding

   o  invalid length specification in case of variable length IEs

3.6.6.  Export of non-matching Template and Data

   Check that the collector successfully drops all those data records
   which do not match with their corresponding template.  Potential
   errors include but are not limited to:

   o  too few IEs in data record

   o  too many IEs in data record

3.6.7.  Incorrect Set IDs

   Check that Template Sets, Options Template Sets, and Data Sets with
   an incorrect Set ID are discarded by the IPFIX collector.  As of
   [I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol] version 19 only the Set ID values 2 and 3
   denote valid sets.

3.6.8.  Flowsets with Invalid Padding

   Check that the IPFIX collector gracefully handles flowsets which have



Schmoll & Aitken         Expires August 17, 2006               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft         IPFIX Test Recommendations          February 2006


   invalid padding, i.e. when the number of padding bytes is incorrect,
   or when the padding is not composed of NUL character(s).  The
   collector MAY accept the data records only for the latter case.

3.6.9.  Re-using the same Template ID inside the Template Expiry Time

   Check how the collector handles the case where a template definition
   is received via UDP export with a template ID which is still in use,
   i.e. not yet timed out.  If the template is the same as the previous
   this is a valid behavior.  Sending a different template with the same
   ID within the template expiry time however is not allowed and should
   be reported by the collector.

3.6.10.  Re-using the same Template ID after the Template Expiry Time

   Check that the collector successfully handles the case where a
   template definition is received via UDP with a template ID that was
   in use but has expired.

   Also check and ensure that the collector drops data records which
   refer to a template after its expiry (or withdrawal in the case of
   SCTP).

3.6.11.  Re-sending an existing template ID without withdrawal

   [I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol] states in section 8 that a template MUST
   NOT be sent more than once during the lifetime of an SCTP
   association.  Create and export a template multiple times using SCTP
   based data transmission.  Ensure that the collector gracefully
   discards any but the first template record.  The collector should log
   a warning about such error observed from an exporter, and MUST shut
   down the SCTP association (if any).



















Schmoll & Aitken         Expires August 17, 2006               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft         IPFIX Test Recommendations          February 2006


4.  Security Considerations

   This memo raises no security issues.

5.  References

   [I-D.ietf-ipfix-architecture]
              Sadasivan, G., "Architecture for IP Flow Information
              Export", draft-ietf-ipfix-architecture-09 (work in
              progress), August 2005.

   [I-D.ietf-ipfix-info]
              Quittek, J., "Information Model for IP Flow Information
              Export", draft-ietf-ipfix-info-11 (work in progress),
              September 2005.

   [I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol]
              Claise, B., "IPFIX Protocol Specification",
              draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-19 (work in progress),
              September 2005.

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




























Schmoll & Aitken         Expires August 17, 2006               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft         IPFIX Test Recommendations          February 2006


Authors' Addresses

   Carsten Schmoll
   Fraunhofer Institute Fokus
   Kaiserin-Augusta-Allee 31
   Berlin  D-10589
   Germany

   Phone: +49 30 3463 7136
   Email: schmoll@fokus.fraunhofer.de
   URI:   http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de


   Paul Aitken
   Cisco Systems
   96 Commercial Quay
   Edinburgh  EH6 6LX
   Scotland

   Phone: +44 131 561 3616
   Email: paitken@cisco.com
   URI:   http://www.cisco.com





























Schmoll & Aitken         Expires August 17, 2006               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft         IPFIX Test Recommendations          February 2006


Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.


Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.




Schmoll & Aitken         Expires August 17, 2006               [Page 17]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.111, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/