IPFIX Working Group B. Claise
Internet-Draft P. Aitken
Intended Status: Informational N.ir Ben-Dvora
Expires: April 16, 2011 Cisco Systems, Inc.
October 16, 2010
Export of Application Information in IPFIX
draft-claise-export-application-info-in-ipfix-00
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance
with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working
groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working
documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-
Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work
in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 16, 2011.
<Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora> Expires April 16 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX > Oct 2010
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described
in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided
without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Abstract
This document specifies an extension to the IP Flow Information
eXport (IPFIX) protocol specification in [RFC5101] and the IPFIX
information model specified in [RFC5102] to export application
information.
Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described
in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
<Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora> Expires April 16 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX > Oct 2010
Table of Contents
1. Overview................................................. 4
1.1. IPFIX Documents Overview............................ 4
2. Introduction............................................. 4
2.1. Application Information Use Case....................... 6
3. Terminology.............................................. 7
3.1. New Terminology..................................... 7
4. applicationTag Information Element Specification......... 7
4.1. Existing Classification Engine IDs.................. 9
4.2. Options Template Record for the Application Name... 11
4.3. Resolving IANA L4 port collisions.................. 11
5. Application Tag Examples................................ 13
5.1. Example 1: Layer 2 Protocol........................ 13
5.2. Example 2: Standardized IANA Layer 3 Protocol...... 14
5.3. Example 3: Cisco Systems Proprietary Layer 3 Protocol15
5.4. Example 4: Standardized IANA Layer 4 Port.......... 17
5.5. Example 4: Layer 7 Application..................... 18
5.6. Example: port Obfuscation.......................... 19
5.7. Example: Application Mapping Options Template...... 20
6. IANA Considerations..................................... 21
6.1. applicationDescription............................. 21
6.2. applicationTag..................................... 22
6.3. applicationName.................................... 22
7. Security Considerations................................. 22
8. References.............................................. 22
8.1. Normative References............................... 22
8.2. Informative References............................. 23
9. Acknowledgement......................................... 23
10. Authors' Addresses..................................... 24
Appendix A. Additions to XML Specification of IPFIX
Information Elements....................................... 25
List of Figures
Figure 1: applicationTag Information Element ............... 8
Figure 2: Selector ID encoding ............................. 9
Table 1: Existing Classification Engine IDs ............... 10
Table 2: IANA layer 4 port collisions ..................... 12
Table 3: Resolving layer 4 UDP ports ...................... 12
<Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora> Expires April 16 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX > Oct 2010
1. Overview
1.1. IPFIX Documents Overview
The IPFIX Protocol [RFC5101] provides network administrators with
access to IP Flow information.
The architecture for the export of measured IP Flow information
out of an IPFIX Exporting Process to a Collecting Process is
defined in the IPFIX Architecture [RFC5470], per the requirements
defined in RFC 3917 [RFC3917].
The IPFIX Architecture [RFC5470] specifies how IPFIX Data Records
and Templates are carried via a congestion-aware transport
protocol from IPFIX Exporting Processes to IPFIX Collecting
Processes.
IPFIX has a formal description of IPFIX Information Elements,
their name, type and additional semantic information, as specified
in the IPFIX information model [RFC5102].
In order to gain a level of confidence in the IPFIX
implementation, probe the conformity and robustness, and allow
interoperability, the Guidelines for IPFIX Testing [RFC5471]
presents a list of tests for implementers of compliant Exporting
Processes and Collecting Processes.
The Bidirectional Flow Export [RFC5103] specifies a method for
exporting bidirectional flow (biflow) information using the IP
Flow Information Export (IPFIX) protocol, representing each Biflow
using a single Flow Record.
The "Reducing Redundancy in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) and
Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Reports" [RFC5473] specifies a bandwidth
saving method for exporting Flow or packet information, by
separating information common to several Flow Records from
information specific to an individual Flow Record: common Flow
information is exported only once.
2. Introduction
Today service providers and network administrators are looking for
visibility into the packet content rather than just the packet
header. Some network devices Metering Processes inspect the
packet content and identify the applications that are utilizing
<Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora> Expires April 16 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX > Oct 2010
the network traffic. Applications in this context are defined as
the user processes that exchange packets between them (such as the
web applications, peer to peer applications, file transfer, e-
mail applications, etc.)
The application identification is based on different kind of
methods or even a combination of such methods:
1. L2 protocols (such as ARP, PPP, LLDP)
2. IP protocols (such as ICMP, IGMP, GRE)
3. TCP or UDP ports (such as HTTP, Telnet, FTP)
4. Application headers
5. Packet content signatures
6. Traffic behavior
The exact application identification methods are part of the
Metering Process internals that aims to provide an accurate
identification with a minimum false identification. This task
requires a sophisticated Metering Process since the protocols do
not behave in a standard manner.
1. Applications use port obfuscation where the application run on
different port than the IANA assigned one. For example a HTTP
server might run a TCP port 23 (assigned to telnet in [IANA-
PORTS])
2. IANA does not accurately reflect how certain ports are
"commonly" used today. Some ports are reserved, but the
application either never became prevalent or is not in use
today.
3. The signatures become more and more complex
For that reason, such Metering Processes usually detect
application based on multiple mechanisms in parallel. Detecting
applications based only on port matching might wrongly identify
the traffic. Note that this example stresses the need for the
engine strength. If the Metering Process is capable of detecting
applications more accurately it is considered as stronger and more
accurate.
Similarly, a reporting mechanism that uses L4 port based
applications only, such as L4:<known port>, would have a similar
issues. The reporting system should be capable of reporting the
applications classified using all types for mechanisms. In
particular applications that does not have any IANA port
definition. While a mechanism to export application information
should be defined, the L4 port being in use must be exported using
the destination port (destinationTransportPort at [IANA-IPFIX]) in
the corresponding NetFlow record.
<Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora> Expires April 16 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX > Oct 2010
Cisco Systems uses the IPFIX application tag as described in
section 4. to export the application information with the IPFIX
protocol [RFC5101].
Application could be defined at different OSI layers, from the
layer 2 to the layer 7. Examples: Cisco Discovery Protocol is
layer 2 application, ICMP is layer 3 application [IANA-PROTO],
HTTP is layer 4 application [IANA-PORTS], and skype is layer 7.
While an ideal solution would be an IANA registry for applications
above (or inside the payload of) the well known ports [IANA-
PORTS], this solution is not always possible as the some
applications require well known specifications. Therefore, some
reverse engineering is required, as well as a ubiquitous language
for application signature. Clearly not realistic.
As this specification focuses on the application information
encoding, this document doesn't contain an application registry
for non IANA applications. However, a reference to the Cisco
assigned numbers can be found at [CISCO].
2.1. Application Information Use Case
There are several use cases on which the application information
is used:
1. Network Visibility
This is one of the main use cases for using the application
information. This use case is also called application
visibility. Network administrators are using such application
visibility to understand the main network consumers, network
trends and user behavior.
2. Billing Services
In some cases, network providers are willing to bill different
applications differently. For example, provide different
billing for VoIP and Web browsing.
3. Congestion Control
While the traffic demand is increasing (mainly due to the high
usage of peer to peer applications, video applications and web
download applications), the providers revenue doesn't grow.
Providers are looking at a more efficient way to control and
<Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora> Expires April 16 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX > Oct 2010
prioritize the network utilization. An application aware
bandwidth control system is used to prioritize the traffic based
on the applications, giving the critical applications priority
over the non-critical applications.
4. Security Functions
Application knowledge is sometimes used in security functions in
order to provide comprehensive functions such as Application
based firewall, URL filtering, Parental control, Intrusion
detection, etc.
All of the above use cases require exporting of application
information to provide the network function itself or to log the
network function operation.
3. Terminology
IPFIX-specific terminology used in this document is defined in
Section 2 of the IPFIX protocol specification [RFC5101]. As in
[RFC5101], these IPFIX-specific terms have the first letter of a
word capitalized when used in this document.
3.1. New Terminology
Application Tag
A unique identifier for an application. The Application Tag
consists of a Classification Engine ID and a Selector ID
[RFC5476].
4. applicationTag Information Element Specification
This document specifies the applicationTag Information Element,
which is composed of two parts:
1. 8 bits of Classification Engine ID.
2. m bits of Selector ID. The Selector ID length varies
depending on the engine.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Class. Eng. ID| Selector ID ... |
<Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora> Expires April 16 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX > Oct 2010
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: applicationTag Information Element
Classification Engine ID
A unique identifier for the engine which determined the
Selector ID. Thus the Classification Engine ID defines the
context for the Selector ID.
Selector ID
A unique identifier of the application for a specific
Classification Engine ID.
Note that the Selector ID term is in sync with the PSAMP
terminology. See [RFC5476], Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Protocol
Specifications.
When an application is detected, the most granular application
is encoded in the Application Tag: for example, ICMP would be
encoded as layer 3 value 1, SNMP as layer 4 value 161, bittorent
as layer 7 value 69.
The overall length of the applicationTag Information Element may
be specified either in the IPFIX Template Record or by using an
IPFIX Variable-Length Information Element. The receiver /
decoder must respect this length rather than using the
Classification Engine ID to make an assumption about the
Selector ID size.
When exporting applicationTag information in IPFIX, the
applicationTag SHOULD be encoded in a variable-length
Information Element [RFC5101]. However, if a legacy protocol
such as NetFlow version 9 is used, and this protocol doesn't
support variable length Information Elements, then either
multiple templates (one per applicationTag length), or a single
template corresponding to the maximum sized applicationTag MUST
be used. This avoids the need for multiple Template Records with
different applicationTag lengths when the IPFIX variable length
encoding [RFC5101] is not available.
As a consequence, although some Application Tags can be encoded
in a smaller number of bytes (eg, an IANA L3 protocol encoding
<Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora> Expires April 16 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX > Oct 2010
would take 2 bytes, while an IANA L4 port encoding would take 3
bytes), nothing prevents an Exporting Process from exporting all
Application Tags with a larger fixed length.
Note that the Selector ID value is always encoded in the least
significant bits as shown:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Class. Eng. ID | zero-valued upper-bits ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... Selector ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Selector ID encoding
4.1. Existing Classification Engine IDs
The following Engine IDs have been allocated by Cisco Systems.
Name Valu Description
e
0 Invalid.
IANA- 1 The IANA protocol (layer 3) number is
L3 exported in the Selector ID.
See
http://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-
numbers.
CANA- 2 Cisco Systems proprietary layer 3
L3 definition. Cisco Systems can still export
its own layer 3 protocol numbers, while
waiting for IANA to assign it. The Selector
ID has a global significance for all Cisco
Systems devices under CANA governance.
Hopefully the same IDs will be maintained
after the IANA standardization.
IANA- 3 IANA layer 4 well-known port number is
L4 exported in the Selector ID.
See http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-
numbers.
Note: as a flow is unidirectional, it
contains the destination port in a flow
from the client to the server.
CANA- 4 Cisco Systems proprietary layer 4
<Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora> Expires April 16 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX > Oct 2010
L4 definition. Cisco Systems can still export
its own layer 4 port numbers, while waiting
for IANA to assign it. The Selector ID has
global significance for all Cisco Systems
devices under CANA governance. Hopefully
the same ID will be maintained after the
IANA standardization. Example: IPFIX had
the port 4739 pre-assigned in the IETF
draft for years. While waiting for the IANA
registration, we could use this Selector
ID.
5 Reserved.
6 Reserved.
7 Reserved.
8 Reserved.
9 Reserved.
10 Reserved.
11 Reserved.
CANA 12 The Selector ID represents the Cisco
-L2 Systems unique global layer 2 applications.
The Selector ID has a global significance.
CANA 13 The Selector ID represents the Cisco
-L7 Systems unique global ID for the layer 7
applications. The Selector ID has global
significance for all Cisco Systems devices.
14 Reserved.
15 Reserved.
16 Reserved.
17
to Available.
254
MAX 255 255 is the maximum Engine ID.
Table 1: Existing Classification Engine IDs
Note 1: "CANA = Cisco Systems Assigned Number Authority", Cisco
Systems's version of IANA for internal IDs.
Note 2: This is an extensible list, and new Classification
Engine IDs may be allocated at any time. See [CISCO] for the
latest version.
<Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora> Expires April 16 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX > Oct 2010
4.2. Options Template Record for the Application Name
For engines which specify locally unique Application Tags (which
means unique per engine and per router), an Options Template
Record (see [RFC5101]) MUST be used to export the correspondence
between the Application Tag, the Application Name, and the
Application Description. This is called the "options
application-table". For engines which specify globally unique
Application Tags, an Options Template Record SHOULD be used to
export the correspondence between the Application Tag, the
Application Name and the Application Description, unless the
mapping is hardcoded in the NetFlow Collector, or known out of
band (for example, by polling a MIB).
4.3. Resolving IANA L4 port collisions
Even if the IANA L4 ports usually point to the same protocols
for both UDP and TCP, there are some exceptions. 10 ports in the
first 1K range of ports have different protocols assigned for
TCP and UDP:
exec 512/tcp remote process execution;
# authentication performed using
# passwords and UNIX login names
comsat/biff 512/udp used by mail system to notify users
# of new mail received; currently
# receives messages only from
# processes on the same machine
login 513/tcp remote login a la telnet;
# automatic authentication performed
# based on priviledged port numbers
# and distributed data bases which
# identify "authentication domains"
who 513/udp maintains data bases showing who's
# logged in to machines on a local
# net and the load average of the
# machine
shell 514/tcp cmd
# like exec, but automatic
authentication
# is performed as for login server
syslog 514/udp
oob-ws-https 664/tcp DMTF out-of-band secure web services
# management protocol
# Jim Davis
<jim.davis&wbemsolutions.com>
<Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora> Expires April 16 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX > Oct 2010
# June 2007
asf-secure-rmcp 664/udp ASF Secure Remote Management
# and Control Protocol
rfile 750/tcp
kerberos-iv 750/udp kerberos version iv
submit 773/tcp
notify 773/udp
rpasswd 774/tcp
acmaint_dbd 774/udp
entomb 775/tcp
acmaint_transd 775/udp
busboy 998/tcp
puparp 998/udp
garcon 999/tcp
applix 999/udp Applix ac
Table 2: IANA layer 4 port collisions
Instead of imposing the protocol (UDP/TCP) in the scope of the
"options application-table" Options Template for all
applications (on top of having the protocol as key-field in the
Flow Record definition), we define that the L4 application is
always TCP related, by convention. So, whenever the collector
has a conflict in looking up IANA, it would choose the TCP
choice. The following UDP L4 applications are assigned in the
Cisco L7 Application Tag range (ie, under Classification Engine
ID 13):
comsat/biff 256/udp used by mail system to notify users
who 257/udp maintains data bases showing who's
syslog 41/udp
asf-secure-rmcp 258/udp ASF Secure Remote Management and
# Control Protocol
kerberos-iv 259/udp kerberos version iv
notify 260/udp
acmaint_dbd 261/udp
acmaint_transd 262/udp
puparp 263/udp
applix 264/udp Applix ac
Table 3: Resolving layer 4 UDP ports
<Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora> Expires April 16 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX > Oct 2010
5. Application Tag Examples
The following examples are created solely for the purpose of
illustrating how the extensions proposed in this document are
encoded.
5.1. Example 1: Layer 2 Protocol
From the list of Classification Engine IDs in Table 1, we can
see that the layer 2 Classification Engine ID is 12:
L2 12 The Selector ID represents the layer 2
applications. The Selector ID has a global
significance.
From the list of layer 2 protocols at [cisco], we can see that
PPP has the value 24:
NAME Selector ID
ppp 24
So, in the case of layer 2 protocol PPP, the Classification
Engine ID is 12 while the Selector ID has the value 24.
Therefore the Application Tag is encoded as:
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 12 | 24 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
So the Application Tag has the value of 3097. Instead of
representing the Application Tag in hexadecimal format, the
format '12...24' is used for simplicity in the examples below.
Flexible NetFlow creates a Template Record with a few
Information Elements: amongst other things, the Application Tag.
For example:
- sourceIPv4Address (key field)
- destinationIPv4Address (key field)
- ipDiffServCodePoint (key field)
- applicationTag (key field)
<Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora> Expires April 16 2011 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX > Oct 2010
- octetTotalCount (non key field)
For example, a Flow Record corresponding to the above Template
Record may contain:
{ sourceIPv4Address=1.1.1.1, destinationIPv4Address=2.2.2.2,
ipDiffServCodePoint=0, applicationTag='12...24',
octetTotalCount=123456 }
The Collector has all the required information to determine that
the application is PPP, because the Application Tag uses a
global and well know registry, ie the IANA protocol number.
The 24 value is globally unique within Cisco Systems for
Classification Engine ID 12, so the Collector can determine
which application is represented by the Application Tag by
loading the registry out of band.
5.2. Example 2: Standardized IANA Layer 3 Protocol
From the list of Classification Engine IDs in Table 1, we can
see that the IANA layer 3 Classification Engine ID is 1:
IANA- 1 The IANA protocol (layer 3) number is
L3 exported in the Selector ID.
See
http://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-
numbers..
From the list of IANA layer 3 protocols (see [IANA-PROTO]), we
can see that ICMP has the value 1:
Decimal Keyword Protocol Reference
1 ICMP Internet Control Message [RFC792]
So in the case of the standardized IANA layer 3 protocol ICMP,
the Classification Engine ID is 1, and the Selector ID has the
value of 1.
Therefore the Application Tag is encoded as:
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
<Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora> Expires April 16 2011 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX > Oct 2010
| 1 | 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
So the Application Tag has the value of 257. Instead of
representing the Application Tag in hexadecimal format, the
format '1...1' is used for simplicity in the examples below.
Flexible NetFlow creates a Template Record with a few
Information Elements: amongst other things, the Application Tag.
For example:
- sourceIPv4Address (key field)
- destinationIPv4Address (key field)
- ipDiffServCodePoint (key field)
- applicationTag (key field)
- octetTotalCount (non key field)
For example, a Flow Record corresponding to the above Template
Record may contain:
{ sourceIPv4Address=1.1.1.1, destinationIPv4Address=2.2.2.2,
ipDiffServCodePoint=0, applicationTag='1...1',
octetTotalCount=123456 }
The Collector has all the required information to determine that
the application is ICMP, because the Application Tag uses a
global and well know registry, ie the IANA L3 protocol number.
5.3. Example 3: Cisco Systems Proprietary Layer 3 Protocol
Assume that Cisco Systems has specified a new layer 3 protocol
called "foo".
From the list of Classification Engine IDs in Table 1, we can
see that the Cisco Systems layer 3 Classification Engine ID is
2:
CANA- 2 Cisco Systems proprietary layer 3
L3 definition. Cisco Systems can still export
its own layer 3 protocol numbers, while
waiting for IANA to assign it. The
Selector ID has a global significance for
all Cisco Systems devices under CANA
governance. Hopefully the same IDs will be
<Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora> Expires April 16 2011 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX > Oct 2010
maintained after the IANA standardization.
A global registry within Cisco Systems specifies that the "foo"
protocol has the value 90:
Protocol Protocol Id
foo 90
So in the case of Cisco Systems layer 3 protocol foo, the
Classification Engine ID is 2, and the Selector ID has the value
of 90.
Therefore the Application Tag is encoded as:
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 2 | 90 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
So the Application Tag has the value of 602. Instead of
representing the Application Tag in hexadecimal format, the
format '2..90' is used for simplicity in the examples below.
Flexible NetFlow creates a Template Record with a few
Information Elements: amongst other things, the Application Tag.
For example:
- sourceIPv4Address (key field)
- destinationIPv4Address (key field)
- ipDiffServCodePoint (key field)
- applicationTag (key field)
- octetTotalCount (non key field)
For example, a Flow Record corresponding to the above Template
Record may contain:
{ sourceIPv4Address=1.1.1.1, destinationIPv4Address=2.2.2.2,
ipDiffServCodePoint=0, applicationTag='2...90',
octetTotalCount=123456 }
Along with this Flow Record, a new Options Template Record would
be exported, as shown in Section 5.7.
<Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora> Expires April 16 2011 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX > Oct 2010
5.4. Example 4: Standardized IANA Layer 4 Port
From the list of Classification Engine IDs in Table 1, we can
see that the IANA layer 4 Classification Engine ID is 3:
IANA- 3 IANA layer 4 well-known port number is
L4 exported in the selector ID.
See http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-
numbers.
Note: as a flow is unidirectional, it
contains the destination port in a flow
from the client to the server.
From the list of IANA layer 4 ports (see [IANA-PORTS]), we can
see that SNMP has the value 161:
Keyword Decimal Description
snmp 161/tcp SNMP
snmp 161/udp SNMP
So in the case of the standardized IANA layer 4 SNMP port, the
Classification Engine ID is 3, and the Selector ID has the value
of 161.
Therefore the Application Tag is encoded as:
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 3 | 161 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Flexible NetFlow creates a Template Record with a few
Information Elements: amongst other things, the Application Tag.
For example:
- sourceIPv4Address (key field)
- destinationIPv4Address (key field)
- protocol (key field)
- ipDiffServCodePoint (key field)
- applicationTag (key field)
- octetTotalCount (non key field)
<Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora> Expires April 16 2011 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX > Oct 2010
For example, a Flow Record corresponding to the above Template
Record may contain:
{ sourceIPv4Address=1.1.1.1, destinationIPv4Address=2.2.2.2,
protocol=17, ipDiffServCodePoint=0,
applicationTag='3..161', octetTotalCount=123456 }
The Collector has all the required information to determine that
the application is SNMP, because the Application Tag uses a
global and well know registry, ie the IANA L4 protocol number.
5.5. Example 4: Layer 7 Application
In this example, the Metering Process has observes some Citrix
traffic.
From the list of Classification Engine IDs in Table 1, we can
see that the L7 unique Engine ID is 13:
L7 13 The Selector ID represents the Cisco Systems
unique global ID for the layer 7
application. The Selector ID has a global
significance for all Cisco Systems devices.
Suppose that the Metering Process returns the ID 10000 for
Citrix traffic.
So, in the case of this Citrix application, the Classification
Engine ID is 13 and the Selector ID has the value of 10000.
Therefore the Application Tag is encoded as:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 13 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 10000 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
So the Application Tag has the value of '13..10000'.
<Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora> Expires April 16 2011 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX > Oct 2010
Note that the figure shows that the Exporting Process exports
the value 10000 in 7 bytes: this is pure speculation. However,
it doesn't matter as the applicationTag would be exported in a
variable length Information Element.
Flexible NetFlow creates a Template Record with a few
Information Elements: amongst other things, the Application Tag.
For example:
- sourceIPv4Address (key field)
- destinationIPv4Address (key field)
- ipDiffServCodePoint (key field)
- applicationTag (key field)
- octetTotalCount (non key field)
For example, a Flow Record corresponding to the above Template
Record may contain:
{ sourceIPv4Address=1.1.1.1, destinationIPv4Address=2.2.2.2,
ipDiffServCodePoint=0, applicationTag='13...10000',
octetTotalCount=123456 }
The 10000 value is globally unique within Cisco Systems, so the
Collector can determine which application is represented by the
Application Tag by loading the registry out of band.
Along with this Flow Record, a new Options Template Record would
be exported, as shown in Section 5.7.
5.6. Example: port Obfuscation
For example, a HTTP server might run a TCP port 23 (assigned to
telnet in [IANA-PORTS]). If the Metering Process is capable of
detecting HTTP in the same case, the Application Tag
representation must contain HTTP. However, if the reporting
application wants to determine whether or the default HTTP port
80 or 8080 was used, it must export the destination port
(destinationTransportPort at [IANA-IPFIX]) in the corresponding
NetFlow record.
In the case of a standardized IANA layer 4 port, the
Classification Engine ID is 2, and the Selector ID has the value
of 80 for HTTP (see [IANA-PORTS]).
Therefore the Application Tag is encoded as:
<Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora> Expires April 16 2011 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX > Oct 2010
0 1 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 3 | 80 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Flexible NetFlow creates a Template Record with a few
Information Elements: amongst other things, the Application Tag.
For example:
- sourceIPv4Address (key field)
- destinationIPv4Address (key field)
- protocol (key field)
- destinationTransportPort (key field)
- applicationTag (key field)
- octetTotalCount (non key field)
For example, a Flow Record corresponding to the above Template
Record may contain:
{ sourceIPv4Address=1.1.1.1, destinationIPv4Address=2.2.2.2,
protocol=17, destinationTransportPort=23,
applicationTag='3..80', octetTotalCount=123456 }
The Collector has all the required information to determine that
the application is HTTP, but runs on port 23.
5.7. Example: Application Mapping Options Template
Along with the Flow Records shown in the above examples, a new
Options Template Record would be exported to express the
Application Name and Application Description associated with
each Application Tag.
The Options Template Record would contain the following
Information Elements:
1. Scope = applicationTag.
From RFC 5101: "The scope, which is only available in the
Options Template Set, gives the context of the reported
Information Elements in the Data Records."
2. applicationName.
3. applicationDescription.
<Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora> Expires April 16 2011 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX > Oct 2010
The Options Data Record associated with the examples above would
contain, for example:
{ scope=applicationTag='2...90',
applicationName="foo",
applicationDescription="The Cisco foo protocol",
scope=applicationTag='13...10000',
applicationName="Citrix",
applicationDescription="A Citrix application" }
When combined with the example Flow Records above, these Options
Template Records tell the NetFlow collector:
1. A flow of 123456 bytes exists from sourceIPv4Address 1.1.1.1
to destinationIPv4address 2.2.2.2 with a DSCP value of 0 and an
applicationTag of '12...90', which maps to the "foo"
application.
2. A flow of 123456 bytes exists from sourceIPv4Address 1.1.1.1
to destinationIPv4address 2.2.2.2 with a DSCP value of 0 and an
Application Tag of '13...10000', which maps to the "Citrix"
application.
6. IANA Considerations
This document specifies three new IPFIX Information Elements: the
applicationDescription, applicationTag and the applicationName.
New Information Elements to be added to the IPFIX Information
Element registry at [IANA-IPFIX] are listed below.
EDITOR'S NOTE: the XML specification in Appendix A must be updated
with the elementID values allocated below.
6.1. applicationDescription
Name: applicationDescription
Description:
Specifies the description of an application.
Abstract Data Type: string
Data Type Semantics:
ElementId: 94
Status: current
<Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora> Expires April 16 2011 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX > Oct 2010
6.2. applicationTag
Name: applicationTag
Description:
Specifies an Application Tag.
(EDITOR'S NOTE: reference this document).
Abstract Data Type: octetArray
Data Type Semantics: identifer
ElementId: 95
Status: current
6.3. applicationName
Name: applicationName
Description:
Specifies the name of an application.
Abstract Data Type: string
Data Type Semantics:
ElementId: 96
Status: current
7. Security Considerations
The same security considerations as for the IPFIX Protocol
[RFC5101] apply.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] S. Bradner, Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels, BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5101] Claise, B., Ed., "Specification of the IP Flow
Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of
IP Traffic Flow Information", RFC 5101, January 2008.
[RFC5102] Quittek, J., Bryant, S., Claise, B., Aitken, P., and
J. Meyer, "Information Model for IP Flow Information
Export", RFC 5102, January 2008.
<Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora> Expires April 16 2011 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX > Oct 2010
8.2. Informative References
[RFC792] J. Postel, Internet Control Message Protocol, RFC 792,
September 1981.
[RFC3917] Quittek, J., Zseby, T., Claise, B., and S. Zander,
Requirements for IP Flow Information Export, RFC 3917,
October 2004.
[RFC5103] Trammell, B., and E. Boschi, "Bidirectional Flow
Export Using IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC
5103, January 2008.
[RFC5470] Sadasivan, G., Brownlee, N., Claise, B., and J.
Quittek, "Architecture for IP Flow Information Export",
RFC 5470, March 2009.
[RFC5471] Schmoll, C., Aitken, P., and B. Claise, "Guidelines
for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Testing", RFC
5471, March 2009.
[RFC5473] Boschi, E., Mark, L., and B. Claise, "Reducing
Redundancy in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) and
Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Reports", RFC 5473, March 2009.
[RFC5476] Claise, B., Ed., "Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Protocol
Specifications", RFC 5476, March 2009.
[IANA-IPFIX] http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml
[IANA-PORTS] http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers
[IANA-PROTO] http://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers
[CISCO] http://www.cisco.com
9. Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank their many colleagues across Cisco
Systems who made this work possible.
<Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora> Expires April 16 2011 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX > Oct 2010
10. Authors' Addresses
Benoit Claise
Cisco Systems Inc.
De Kleetlaan 6a b1
Diegem 1813
Belgium
Phone: +32 2 704 5622
EMail: bclaise@cisco.com
Paul Aitken
Cisco Systems (Scotland) Ltd.
96 Commercial Quay
Commercial Street
Edinburgh, EH6 6LX, United Kingdom
Phone: +44 131 561 3616
EMail: paitken@cisco.com
Nir Ben-Dvora
Cisco Systems Inc.
32 HaMelacha St.,
P.O.Box 8735, I.Z.Sapir
South Netanya, 42504
Israel
Phone: +972 9 892 7187
EMail: nirbd@cisco.com
<Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora> Expires April 16 2011 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft <Export of App. Info. in IPFIX > Oct 2010
Appendix A. Additions to XML Specification of IPFIX Information
Elements
This appendix contains additions to the machine-readable
description of the IPFIX information model coded in XML in
Appendix A and Appendix B in [RFC5102]. Note that this appendix
is of informational nature, while the text in section Error!
Reference source not found.(generated from this appendix) is
normative.
The following field definitions are appended to the IPFIX
information model in Appendix A of [RFC5102].
<field name="applicationDescription"
dataType="string"
group="application"
elementId="94" applicability="all" status="current">
<description>
<paragraph>
Specifies the description of an application.
</paragraph>
</description>
</field>
<field name="applicationTag"
dataType="octetArray"
group="application"
dataTypeSemantics="identifer"
elementId="95" applicability="all" status="current">
<description>
<paragraph>
Specifies an Application Tag.
</paragraph>
</description>
</field>
<field name="applicationName"
dataType="string"
group="application"
elementId="96" applicability="all" status="current">
<description>
<paragraph>
Specifies the name of an application.
</paragraph>
</description>
</field>
<Claise, Aitken, Ben-Dvora> Expires April 16 2011 [Page 25]
