IPFIX Working Group A. Kobayashi, Ed.
Internet-Draft NTT PF Lab.
Intended status: Informational B. Claise, Ed.
Expires: January 14, 2010 Cisco Systems, Inc.
July 13, 2009
IPFIX Mediation: Problem Statement
draft-ietf-ipfix-mediators-problem-statement-04
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain material
from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly
available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the
copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF
Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the
IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from
the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this
document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and
derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards
Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
translate it into languages other than English.
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 January 14, 2010.
Kobayashi, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Mediation Problem Statement July 2009
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Kobayashi, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Mediation Problem Statement July 2009
Abstract
Flow-based measurement is a popular method for various network
monitoring usages. The sharing of flow-based information for
monitoring applications having different requirements raises some
open issues in terms of measurement system scalability, flow-based
measurement flexibility, and export reliability that IPFIX Mediation
may help resolve. IPFIX Mediation covers two classes of mediation:
content mediation for traffic data and transport mediation for
transport protocols. This document describes the IPFIX Mediation
applicability examples, along with some problems that network
administrators have been facing.
Kobayashi, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Mediation Problem Statement July 2009
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Terminology and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. IPFIX/PSAMP Documents Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. IPFIX Documents Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. PSAMP Documents Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Coping with IP Traffic Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Coping with Multipurpose Traffic Measurement . . . . . . . 10
4.3. Coping with Heterogeneous Environments . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Mediation Applicability Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. Adjusting Flow Granularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. Hierarchical Collecting Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. Correlation for Data Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.4. Time Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.5. Spatial Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.6. Data Record Anonymization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.7. Data Retention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.8. IPFIX Export from a Branch Office . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.9. Distributing Data Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.10. Flow-based Sampling and Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.11. Interoperability between Legacy Protocols and IPFIX . . . 18
6. IPFIX Mediators Implementation Specific Problems . . . . . . . 19
6.1. Loss of Original Exporter Information . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.2. Loss of Base Time Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.3. Transport Sessions Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.4. Loss of Option Template Information . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.5. Template ID Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.6. Consideration for Network Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.7. Exporting the Function Item . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.8. Consideration for Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7. Summary and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Kobayashi, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Mediation Problem Statement July 2009
1. Introduction
One advantage of Flow-based measurement results from easily offering
the traffic monitoring of a huge amount of traffic. While the usage
is applied to any networks and to multiple measurement applications,
network administrators need to optimize the resource of metering
devices and of multiple measurement applications. IP traffic growth
and a wide variety of measurement application make the optimization
further difficult. To achieve system optimization, an intermediate
device can generally be applied to the system platform.
The IPFIX requirements defined in [RFC3917] mention examples of
intermediate devices, such as IPFIX Proxies or Concentrators, there
are no documents defining a generalized concept for such intermediate
devices. This document addresses that issue by defining IPFIX
Mediation, a generalized intermediate device concept for IPFIX, and
examining in detail the motivations behind its application.
This document is structured as follows: section 2 describes the
terminology used in this document, section 3 gives an IPFIX/PSAMP
document overview, section 4 introduces general problems related to
flow-based measurement, section 5 describes some applicability
examples where IPFIX Mediations would be beneficial, and, finally,
section 6 describes some problems an IPFIX Mediation implementation
might face.
Kobayashi, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Mediation Problem Statement July 2009
2. Terminology and Definitions
The terms in this section are in line with those in the IPFIX
Protocol specifications [RFC5101] and the PSAMP specification
document [RFC5476]. The terms Observation Point, Observation Domain,
Flow Key, Flow Record, Data Record, Exporting Process, Exporter,
IPFIX Device, Collecting Process, Collector, IPFIX Message, Metering
Process, Transport Session, Information Element, and Template
Withdrawal Message, are defined in the IPFIX protocol specifications
[RFC5101]. The terms Packet Report, Sampling, Filtering, PSAMP
Device, and Configured Selection Fraction are defined in the PSAMP
specification document [RFC5476]. Furthermore, new terminology to be
used in the context of IPFIX Mediation is defined in this section.
All the words in these terms are started with a capital letter in
this document.
In this document, we use the generic term "Data Records" for IPFIX
Flow Records, PSAMP Packet Reports, and Data Records defined by
Options Templates, unless an explicit distinction is required.
Original Exporter
An Original Exporter is an IPFIX Device that hosts the Observation
Points where the metered IP packets are observed.
IPFIX Mediation
IPFIX Mediation is the manipulation and conversion of records for
subsequent export using IPFIX, by applying mediation functions to
a stream of records.
The following terms are used in this document to describe the
architectural entities used by IPFIX Mediation.
Intermediate Process
An Intermediate Process takes a sequence of records from a
Collecting Process, Metering Process, IPFIX File Reader, or
another Intermediate Process; performs some transformation on
these records based upon the content of the records themselves,
keeps state across multiple records, configuration parameters, or
other data; and passes a sequence of transformed records on to an
Exporting Process, IPFIX File Writer, or another Intermediate
Process. Typically, an Intermediate Process is hosted by an IPFIX
Mediator. Alternatively, an Intermediate Process may be hosted by
an Original Exporter.
Kobayashi, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Mediation Problem Statement July 2009
IPFIX Mediator
An IPFIX Mediator is an IPFIX Device that provides mediation
capabilities by receiving records from some data source, hosting
zero or more Intermediate Processes to transform those records,
and exporting those records in IPFIX Messages via an Exporting
Process. In the common case, an IPFIX Mediator receives records
from a Collecting Process but could also receive records from data
sources not encoded using IPFIX, e.g., in the case of NetFlow V9
protocol translation.
Specific types of IPFIX Mediators are defined below.
IPFIX Proxy
An IPFIX Proxy is an IPFIX Mediator that relays incoming IPFIX
Messages or messages in other protocols to one or more Collectors.
It can provide transport protocol mediation and re-encoding.
IPFIX Concentrator
An IPFIX Distributor is an IPFIX Mediator that receives data from
one or more Exporters and sends them to one or more Collectors,
deciding which Collector(s) to send each record to based upon the
decision of an Intermediate Process.
IPFIX Distributor
An IPFIX Distributor is an IPFIX Mediator that receives data from
one or more Exporters and sends them to one or more Collectors,
deciding which Collector(s) to send each record to based upon the
decision of an Intermediate Process.
IPFIX Masquerading Proxy
An IPFIX Masquerading Proxy is an IPFIX Mediator that receives
data from one or more Exporters and sends them to a single
Collector, using one or more Intermediate Processes to screen out
parts of records according to configured policies, in order to
protect the privacy of the network's end users or sensitive data
of the exporting organization.
Kobayashi, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Mediation Problem Statement July 2009
3. IPFIX/PSAMP Documents Overview
3.1. 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 [RFC5470], per the requirements
defined in [RFC3917]. The IPFIX protocol [RFC5101] specifies how
IPFIX Data Records and Templates are carried via a number of
transport protocols from IPFIX Exporting Processes to IPFIX
Collecting Processes. IPFIX has a formal description of IPFIX
Information Elements, their names, types, and additional semantic
information, as specified in [RFC5102]. [I-D.ietf-ipfix-mib]
specifies the IPFIX Management Information Base. Finally, [RFC5472]
describes what types of applications can use the IPFIX protocol and
how they can use the information provided. It furthermore shows how
the IPFIX framework relates to other architectures and frameworks.
The storage of IPFIX Messages in a file is specified in
[I-D.ietf-ipfix-file].
3.2. PSAMP Documents Overview
The framework for packet selection and reporting [RFC5474] enables
network elements to select subsets of packets by statistical and
other methods and to export a stream of reports on the selected
packets to a Collector. The set of packet selection techniques
(Sampling, Filtering, and Hashing) standardized by PSAMP are
described in [RFC5475]. The PSAMP protocol [RFC5476] specifies the
export of packet information from a PSAMP Exporting Process to a
Collector. Like IPFIX, PSAMP has a formal description of its
Information Elements, their names, types and additional semantic
information. The PSAMP information model is defined in [RFC5477].
[I-D.ietf-psamp-mib] describes the PSAMP Management Information Base.
Kobayashi, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Mediation Problem Statement July 2009
4. Problem Statement
Network administrators generally face the problems of measurement
system scalability, flow-based measurement flexibility, and export
reliability, even if some techniques, such as Sampling, Filtering,
Data Records aggregation and export replication, have already been
developed. The problems consist of optimizing the resources of the
measurement system while fulfilling appropriate conditions: data
accuracy, flow granularity, and export reliability. These conditions
depend on two factors.
o measurement systems capacity:
This consists of the bandwidth of the management network, the
storage capacity, and the performances of the collecting devices
and exporting devices.
o applications requirements:
Different applications, such as traffic engineering, detecting
traffic anomalies, and accounting, etc., impose different Flow
Record granularity, and data accuracy.
The sustained growth of IP traffic has been overwhelming the
measurement system capacities. Furthermore, a large variety of
applications (e.g., QoS measurement, traffic engineering, security
monitoring) and the deployment of IP traffic measurements in
heterogeneous environments have been increasing the demand and
complexity of IP traffic measurements.
4.1. Coping with IP Traffic Growth
Enterprise or service provider networks already have multiple 10 Gb/s
links, their total traffic exceeding 100 Gb/s. In the near future,
broadband users' traffic will increase by approximately 40% every
year according to [TRAFGRW]. When operators monitor traffic of 500
Gb/s with a packet sampling rate of 1/1000, the amount of exported
Flow Records from Exporters could exceed 50 kFlows/s. This value is
beyond the ability of a single Collector.
To deal with this problem, current data reduction techniques
(Sampling and Filtering in [RFC5475], and aggregation of measurement
data) have been generally implemented on Exporters. Note that
Sampling technique leads to potential loss of small Flows. With both
Sampling and aggregation techniques, administrators might no longer
be able to detect and investigate subtle traffic changes and
anomalies as this requires detailed flow information. With
Filtering, only a subset of the Data Records are exported.
Considering the potential drawbacks of Sampling, Filtering, and Data
Kobayashi, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Mediation Problem Statement July 2009
Records aggregation, there is a need for a large-scale collecting
infrastructure that does not rely on data reduction techniques.
4.2. Coping with Multipurpose Traffic Measurement
Different monitoring applications impose different requirements on
the monitoring infrastructure. Some of them require traffic
monitoring at a flow level while others need information about
individual packets or just flow aggregates.
To fulfill these divers requirements, an Exporter would need to
perform various complex metering tasks in parallel, which is a
problem due to limited resources. Hence, it can be advantageous to
run the Exporter with a much simpler setup and to perform appropriate
post-processing of the exported Data Records at a later stage.
4.3. Coping with Heterogeneous Environments
Network administrators use IPFIX Devices and PSAMP Devices from
various vendors, various software versions, various device types
(router, switch, or probe) in a single network domain. Even legacy
flow export protocols are still deployed in current network. This
heterogeneous environment leads to differences in Metering Process
capabilities, Exporting Process capacity (export rate, cache memory,
etc.), and data format. For example, probes and switches cannot
retrieve some derived packet properties in [RFC5102] from a routing
table.
To deal with this problem, the collecting infrastructure needs to
mediate the differences. However, equipping all collecting devices
with this absorption function is difficult.
4.4. Summary
In optimizing the resources of a measurement system, it is important
to use traffic data reduction techniques as early as possible, e.g.,
at the Exporter. However, this implementation is made difficult by
heterogeneous environment of exporting devices.
This implies that a new Mediation function is required in typical
Exporter-Collector architectures. Based on some applicability
examples, the next section shows the limitation of the typical
Exporter-Collector architecture model and the IPFIX Mediation
benefits.
Kobayashi, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Mediation Problem Statement July 2009
5. Mediation Applicability Examples
5.1. Adjusting Flow Granularity
A set of common properties of simplest Flow type is a fixed 5-tuple
of protocol, source and destination IP addresses, and source and
destination port numbers. A shorter set of common properties, such
as a triple, a double, or a single property, (for example network
prefix, peering autonomous system number, or BGP Next-Hop fields),
creates more aggregated Flow Records. This is especially useful for
measuring traffic exchange in an entire network domain and for easily
adjusting the performance of Exporters and Collectors.
Implementation analysis:
Implementations for this case depend on where Flow granularity is
adjusted. More suitable implementations use configurable Metering
Processes in Original Exporters. The cache in the Metering
Process can specify its own set of common properties (Flow Keys)
and extra fields. The Original Exporter thus creates directly
aggregated Flow Records.
In the case where the Original Exporter contains a Metering
Process that creates fixed tuple Flow Records (no ability to
change the Flow Keys), or PSAMP Packet Reports, an IPFIX
Concentrator can aggregate Data Records based on a new set of Flow
Keys. Even in the case where the Original Exporter contains a
Metering Process for which the Flow Keys can be configured, an
IPFIX Concentrator can further aggregate the Flow Records.
5.2. Hierarchical Collecting Infrastructure
The increase of IPFIX Exporters, the increase of the traffic, and the
variety of treatments expected to be performed over the Data Records
is more and more difficult to handle within a single Collector.
Hence to increase the collecting (e.g., the bandwidth capacity) and
processing capacity, distributed Collectors must be deployed. As a
possible approach, a hierarchical structure is useful for increasing
the measurement systems capacity, both in export bandwidth capacity
and in collecting capacity.
Implementation analysis:
To cope with the increase of IPFIX Exporters and traffic, one
possible implementation uses IPFIX Concentrators to build a
hierarchical collection system. To cope with the variety of
treatments, one possible implementation uses IPFIX Distributors to
build a distributed collection system. More specific cases are
Kobayashi, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Mediation Problem Statement July 2009
described in section 5.9.
5.3. Correlation for Data Records
The correlation amongst Data Records or between Data Record and meta
data provides new metrics or information, including the following.
o One-to-one correlation between Data Records
* One way delay and packet inter-arrival time etc. One way delay
from the correlation of PSAMP Packet Reports from different
Exporters along a specific path.
* Treatment from the correlation of Data Records with the common
properties, observed at incoming/outgoing interfaces. Examples
are the rate-limiting ratio, the compression ratio, the
optimization ratio, etc.
o Correlation amongst Data Records
Average/maximum/minimum values from correlating multiple Data
Records. Examples are the average/maximum/minimum number of
packets of the measured Flows, the average/maximum/minimum one way
delay, the average/maximum/minimum number of lost packets, etc.
o Correlation between Data Record and other meta data
Examples are some BGP attributes associated with Data Record by
looking up the routing table.
Implementation analysis:
One possible implementation for this case uses an IPFIX
Concentrator located between the Metering Processes and Exporting
Processes on the Original Exporter, or alternatively a separate
IPFIX Concentrator located between the Original Exporters and
IPFIX Collectors.
5.4. Time Composition
Time composition is defined as the aggregation of consecutive Data
Records with common properties. It leads to the same output as
setting a longer active interval timer on Original Exporters with one
advantage: the creation of new metrics such as average, maximum and
minimum values from Flow Records with a shorter time interval enables
administrators to keep track of changes that might have happened
during the time interval.
Kobayashi, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Mediation Problem Statement July 2009
Implementation analysis:
One possible implementation for this case uses an IPFIX
Concentrator located between the Metering Processes and Exporting
Processes on the Original Exporter, or alternatively a separate
IPFIX Concentrator located between the Original Exporters and
IPFIX Collectors.
5.5. Spatial Composition
Spatial composition is defined as the aggregation of Data Records in
a set of Observation Points within an Observation Domain, across
multiple Observation Domains from a single Exporter, or even across
multiple Exporters. The spatial composition is divided into four
types.
o Case 1: Spatial Composition within one Observation Domain
For example, in the case where a link aggregation exists, Data
Records measured at physical interfaces belonging to the same
trunk can be merged.
o Case 2: Spatial Composition across Observation Domains, but within
a single Exporter
For example, in the case where a link aggregation exists, Data
Records measured at physical interfaces belonging to a same trunk
grouping beyond the line interface module can be merged.
o Case 3: Spatial Composition across Exporters
Data Records measured within an administrative domain, such as the
west area and east area of an ISP network, can be merged.
o Case 4: Spatial Composition across administrative domains
Data Records measured across administrative domains, such as
across different customer networks or different ISP networks, can
be merged.
Implementation analysis:
One possible implementation for the cases 1 and 2 uses an IPFIX
Concentrator located between the Metering Processes and Exporting
Processes on the Original Exporter. A separate IPFIX Concentrator
located between the Original Exporters and IPFIX Collector is a
valid solution for the cases 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Kobayashi, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Mediation Problem Statement July 2009
5.6. Data Record Anonymization
IPFIX exports across administrative domains can be used to measure
traffic for wide-area traffic engineering or to analyze Internet
traffic trends, as described in the spatial composition across
administrative domains in the previous subsection.
In such a case, administrators need to adhere to privacy protection
policies and prevent access to confidential traffic measurements by
other people. Typically, anonymization techniques enables the
provision of traffic data to other people without violating these
policies.
As another example, when ISP provides a traffic monitoring service to
end customers by their own Exporters, even in case of exporting
interface index fields, network administrators take care of
anonymizing its fields to avoid disclosing the vulnerability.
Generally, anonymization modifies a data set to protect the identity
of the people or entities described by the data set from being
disclosed. It also attempts to preserve sets of network traffic
properties useful for a given analysis while ensuring the data cannot
be traced back to the specific networks, hosts, or users generating
the traffic. For example, IP address anonymization is particularly
important for avoiding the identification of the users, hosts, and
routers.
Implementation analysis:
One possible implementation for this case uses an anonymization
function at the Original Exporter. However, this increases the
load on the Original Exporter. A more flexible implementation
uses a separate IPFIX Masquerading Proxy between the Original
Exporter and Collector.
5.7. Data Retention
Data retention refers to the storage of traffic data by service
providers and commercial organizations. Legislative regulations
often require that network operators retain both IP traffic data and
call detail records, in wired and wireless networks, generated by end
users while using a service provider's services. The traffic data is
required for the purpose of the investigation, detection and
prosecution of serious crime, if necessary. Data retention services
examples are the following:
o Fixed telephony (includes fixed voice calls, voicemail, and
conference and data calls)
Kobayashi, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Mediation Problem Statement July 2009
o Mobile telephony (includes mobile voice calls, voicemail,
conference and data calls, SMS, and MMS)
o Internet telephony (includes every multimedia session associated
with IP multimedia services)
o Internet e-mail
o Internet access
Data retention for Internet access services in particular requires a
measurement system with reliable export and huge storage as the data
must be available for a long period of time, typically at least six
months.
Implementation analysis:
Regarding export reliability requirement, the most suitable
implementation uses the SCTP transport protocol between the
Original Exporter and Collector. If an unreliable transport
protocol such as UDP is used, a legacy exporting device exports
Data Records to a nearby IPFIX Proxy through UDP, and then an
IPFIX Proxy could reliably export them to the IPFIX Collector
through SCTP. If an unreliable transport protocol such as UDP is
used and if there is no IPFIX Proxy, the legacy exporting device
must duplicate the exports to several Collectors. But, it might
result in network congestion.
Regarding huge storage requirement, one possible implementation
adopts a distributed collection system to increase the storage
capacity. Example is a parallel structure in which Collectors are
located near Exporters. If some application servers need to
communicate with these Collectors, these Collectors would have an
Exporting Process as an IPFIX Mediator.
5.8. IPFIX Export from a Branch Office
Generally, in large enterprise networks, Data Records from branch
offices are gathered in a central office. However, in the long
distance branch office case, the bandwidth for transport IPFIX is
limited. Therefore, even if multiple Data Record types should be of
interest to the Collector (e.g., IPFIX Flow Records in both
directions, IPFIX Flow Records before and after WAN optimization
techniques, performance metrics associated with the IPFIX Flow
Records exported on regular interval, etc.), the export bandwidth
limitation is an important factor to pay attention to.
Kobayashi, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Mediation Problem Statement July 2009
Implementation analysis:
One possible implementation for this case uses an IPFIX
Concentrator located in a branch office. The IPFIX Concentrator
would aggregate and correlate Data Records to cope with the export
bandwidth limitation.
5.9. Distributing Data Records
Recently, several networks have shifted towards integrated networks,
such as the pure IP and MPLS networks, which includes IPv4, IPv6, and
VPN traffic. Data Record types (IPv4, IPv6, MPLS, and VPN) need to
be analyzed separately and from different perspectives for different
organizations. A single Collector handling all Data Record types
might become a bottleneck in the collecting infrastructure. Data
Records distributed based on their respective types can be exported
to the appropriate Collector, resulting in the load distribution
amongst multiple Collectors.
Implementation analysis:
One possible implementation for this case uses the replications of
the IPFIX Message in an Original Exporter for multiple IPFIX
Collectors. Each Collector then extracts the Data Record required
by its own applications. However, the replication increases the
load of the Exporting Process and the waste of the bandwidth
between the Exporter and Collector.
A more sophisticated implementation uses an IPFIX Distributor
located between the Metering Processes and Exporting Processes in
an Original Exporter. The IPFIX Distributor determines to which
Collector a Data Record is exported depending on certain field
values. If a Original Exporter does not have IPFIX Distributor
capability, it exports Data Records to a nearby separate IPFIX
Distributor, and then the IPFIX Distributor could distribute them
to the appropriate IPFIX Collectors.
For example, in the case of distributing a specific customer's
Data Records, an IPFIX Distributor needs to identify the customer
networks. The Route Distinguisher (RD), ingress interface,
peering AS number, or BGP Next-Hop, or simply the network prefix
may be evaluated to distinguish different customer networks. In
the following figure, the IPFIX Distributor reroutes Data Records
on the basis of the RD value. This system enables each customer's
traffic to be inspected independently.
Kobayashi, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Mediation Problem Statement July 2009
.---------.
|Traffic |
.---->|Collector|<==>Customer#A
| |#1 |
| '---------'
RD=100:1
.----------. .-----------. |
|IPFIX | |IPFIX |----' .---------.
|Exporter#1| |Distributor| RD=100:2 |Traffic |
| |------->| |--------->|Collector|<==>Customer#B
| | | | |#2 |
| | | |----. '---------'
'----------' '-----------' |
RD=100:3
| .---------.
| |Traffic |
'---->|Collector|<==>Customer#C
|#3 |
'---------'
Figure A: Distributing Data Records to Collectors using IPFIX
Distributor
5.10. Flow-based Sampling and Selection
Generally, the distribution of the number of packets per Flow seems
to be heavy-tailed. Most types of Flow Records are likely to be
small Flows consisting of a small number of packets. The measurement
system is overwhelmed with a huge amount of these small Flows. If
statistics information of small Flows is exported as merged data by
applying a policy or threshold, the load on the Exporter is reduced.
Furthermore, if the flow distribution is known, exporting only a
subset of the Data Records might be sufficient.
Implementation analysis:
One possible implementation for this case uses an IPFIX
Concentrator located between the Metering Processes and Exporting
Processes on the Original Exporter, or alternatively a separate
IPFIX Concentrator located between the Original Exporters and
IPFIX Collectors. A set of IPFIX Mediation functions, such as
filtering, selecting and aggregation is used in the IPFIX
Concentrator.
Kobayashi, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Mediation Problem Statement July 2009
5.11. Interoperability between Legacy Protocols and IPFIX
During the migration process from a legacy protocol such as NetFlow
[RFC3954] to IPFIX, both NetFlow exporting devices and IPFIX
Exporters are likely to coexist in the same network. Operators need
to continue measuring the traffic data from legacy exporting devices,
even after introducing IPFIX Collectors.
Implementation analysis:
One possible implementation for this case uses an IPFIX Proxy that
converts a legacy protocol to IPFIX.
Kobayashi, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Mediation Problem Statement July 2009
6. IPFIX Mediators Implementation Specific Problems
6.1. Loss of Original Exporter Information
Both the Exporter IP address indicated by the source IP address of
the IPFIX Transport Session and the Observation Domain ID included in
the IPFIX Message header are likely to be lost during IPFIX
Mediation. In some cases, a IPFIX Masquerading Proxy might drop the
information deliberately. In general, however, the Collector must
recognize the origin of the measurement information, such as the IP
address of the Original Exporter, the Observation Domain ID, or even
the Observation Point ID. Note that, if an IPFIX Mediator can not
communicate the Original Exporter IP address, then the IPFIX
Collector will wrongly deduce that the IP address of the IPFIX
Mediator is that of the Original Exporter.
In the following figure, a Collector can identify two IP addresses:
10.1.1.3 (IPFIX Mediator) and 10.1.1.2 (Exporter#2), respectively.
The Collector, however, needs to somehow recognize both Exporter#1
and Exporter#2, which are the Original Exporters. The IPFIX Mediator
must be able to notify the Collector about the IP address of the
Original Exporter.
.----------. .--------.
|IPFIX | |IPFIX |
|Exporter#1|--------->|Mediator|---+
| | | | |
'----------' '--------' | .---------.
IP:10.1.1.1 IP:10.1.1.3 '----->|IPFIX |
ODID:10 ODID:0 |Collector|
+----->| |
.----------. | '---------'
|IPFIX | |
|Exporter#2|-----------------------'
| |
'----------'
IP:10.1.1.2
ODID:20
Figure B: Loss of Original Exporter Information.
6.2. Loss of Base Time Information
The Export Time field included in the IPFIX Message header represents
a reference timestamp for Data Records. Some IPFIX Information
Elements, described in [RFC5102], carry delta timestamps that
indicate the time difference from the value of the Export Time field.
If the Data Records include any delta time fields and the IPFIX
Kobayashi, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Mediation Problem Statement July 2009
Mediator overwrites the Export Time field when sending IPFIX
Messages, the delta time fields become meaningless and, because
Collectors cannot recognize this situation, wrong time values are
propagated.
6.3. Transport Sessions Management
Maintaining relationships between the incoming Transport Sessions and
the outgoing ones depends on the Mediator's implementation. If an
IPFIX Mediator relays multiple incoming Transport Sessions to a
single outgoing Transport Session, and if the IPFIX Mediators shuts
down its outgoing Transport Session, Data Records of the incoming
Transport Sessions would not be relayed any more. In the case of
resetting an incoming session, the behavior of the IPFIX Mediator
needs to be specified.
6.4. Loss of Option Template Information
In some cases, depending on the implementation of the IPFIX
Mediators, the information reported in the Data Records defined by
Option Templates could also be lost. If, for example, the Sampling
rate is not communicated from the Mediator to the Collector, the
Collector would miscalculate the traffic volume. This might lead to
crucial problems. Even if an IPFIX Mediator was to simply relay
received Data Records defined by Options Templates, the values of its
scope fields could become meaningless in the content of a different
Transport Sessions. The minimal information to be communicated by an
IPFIX Mediator must be specified.
6.5. Template ID Management
The Template ID is unique on the basis of the Transport Session and
Observation Domain ID. If IPFIX Mediation is not able to manage the
relations amongst the Template IDs and the incoming Transport Session
information, and if the Template ID is used in the Options Template
scope, IPFIX Mediators would, for example, relay wrong values in the
scope field and in the Template Withdrawal Message. The Collector
would thus not be able to interpret the Template ID in the Template
Withdrawal Message and in the Options Template scope. As a
consequence, there is a risk that the Collector would then shut down
the IPFIX Transport Session.
For example, an IPFIX Distributor must maintain the state of the
incoming Transport Sessions in order to manage the Template ID on its
outgoing Transport Session correctly. Even if the Transport Session
from Exporter re-initializes, the IPFIX Distributor must manage the
association of Template IDs in specific Transport Session. In the
following figure, the IPFIX Distributor exports three Templates (256,
Kobayashi, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Mediation Problem Statement July 2009
257, and 258) kept the values of Template ID of incoming Transport
Sessions. Even when the Exporter#1 is re-initialized and the
Template ID value 258 is replaced with 256, the IPFIX Distributor
must avoid the duplication of Template ID values without the shutdown
of outgoing Transport Session.
.----------. OLD: Template ID 258
|IPFIX | NEW: Template ID 256
|Exporter#1|----+
| | |
'----------' X
.----------. | .-----------. .----------.
|IPFIX | '---------->| | | |
|Exporter#2|--------------->|IPFIX |-------------->|IPFIX |
| |Template ID 257 |Distributor|Template ID 258| Collector|
'----------' +---------->| |Template ID 257| |
.----------. | '-----------'Template ID 256'----------'
|IPFIX | |
|Exporter#3|----'
| | Template ID 256
'----------'
Figure C: Relaying from Multiple Transport Sessions to Single
Transport Session.
6.6. Consideration for Network Topology
While IPFIX Mediation can be applied anywhere, caution should be
taken as how to aggregate the counters, as there is a potential risk
of double-counting. For example, if three Exporters export PSAMP
Packet Reports related to the same Flow, the one-way delay can be
calculated, while summing up the number of packets and bytes does not
make sense. Alternatively, if three Exporters export Flow Records
entering an administrative domain, then the sum of the packets and
bytes is a valid operation. Therefore, the possible function to be
applied to Flow Records must take into consideration the measurement
topology. The information such as the network topology, or at least
the Observation Point and measurement direction, is required for
IPFIX Mediation.
6.7. Exporting the Function Item
In some case, the IPFIX Collector needs to recognize which specific
function(s) the IPFIX Mediation has executed on the Data Records.
The IPFIX Collector cannot distinguish between time composition,
spatial composition, and Flow Key aggregation, if the IPFIX Mediator
does not export the applied function. Some parameters related to the
Kobayashi, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Mediation Problem Statement July 2009
function also would need to be exported. For example, in case of
time composition, the active time of original Flow Records is
required to interpret the minimum/maximum counter correctly. In case
of spatial composition, spatial area information on which Data
Records is aggregated is required.
6.8. Consideration for Aggregation
In case of Flow Key aggregation, time composition, and spatial
composition, there is a consideration regarding Configured Selection
Fraction.
There is no obvious rules of how to compute Configured Selection
Fraction, an IPFIX Mediator should report Configured Selection
Fraction, when aggregating IPFIX Flow Records of sampled packets.
For example, special care must be taken in the following: aggregation
resulting from the different Configured Selection Fraction,
aggregation resulting from different Sampling techniques, such as
Systematic Count-Based Sampling and Random n-out-of-N Sampling etc.
Kobayashi, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Mediation Problem Statement July 2009
7. Summary and Conclusion
This document described the problems that network administrators have
been facing, the applicability of IPFIX Mediation to these problems,
and the problems related to the implementation of IPFIX Mediators.
To assist the operations of the Exporters and Collectors, there are
various IPFIX Mediations from which the administrators may select.
Examples of the applicability of IPFIX Mediation are as follows.
o Regarding large-scale measurement system, IPFIX Concentrators or
IPFIX Distributors help to achieve traffic analysis with high data
accuracy and fine flow granularity even as IP traffic grows. As
IPFIX Mediation capabilities, flow sampling, aggregation, and
composition are effective.
o Regarding data retention, IPFIX Mediators enhance the export
reliability, and the storage of the measurement system.
o Regarding the distribution of Data Records, IPFIX Distributors
help to achieve multipurpose traffic analysis for different
organizations, or help to achieve respective traffic analysis
based on Data Record types(IPv4, IPv6, MPLS, and VPN).
o Regarding IPFIX exporting across domains, IPFIX Masquerading
Proxies help administrators to anonymize or filter Data Records,
preventing privacy violations.
o Regarding interoperability, IPFIX Proxies provide interoperability
between legacy protocols and IPFIX, even during the migration
period to IPFIX.
As a result, the IPFIX Mediation benefits become apparent. However,
there are still some open issues with the use of IPFIX Mediators.
o Both Observation Point and IPFIX Message header information, such
as the Exporter IP address, Observation Domain ID, and Export Time
field, might be lost. This data should therefore be communicated
between the Original Exporter and Collector via the IPFIX
Mediator.
o IPFIX Mediators are required to manage Transport Sessions,
Template IDs, and Observation Domain IDs. Otherwise, anomalous
IPFIX Messages could be created.
o Data Records defined by Options Templates, such as those reporting
the Sampling rate and Sampling algorithm used, might be lost
during IPFIX Mediation. If a Collector is not informed of current
Sampling rates, traffic information might become worthless.
Kobayashi, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Mediation Problem Statement July 2009
These problems stem from the fact that no standards regarding IPFIX
Mediation have been set. In particular, the minimum set of
information that should be communicated between Original Exporters
and Collectors, the management between different IPFIX Transport
Sessions, and the internal components of IPFIX Mediators should be
standardized.
Kobayashi, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Mediation Problem Statement July 2009
8. Security Considerations
A flow-based measurement system must prevent potential security
threats: the disclosure of confidential traffic data, injection of
incorrect data, and unauthorized access to traffic data. These
security threats of the IPFIX protocol are covered by the security
considerations section in [RFC5101] and are still valid for IPFIX
Mediators.
And a measurement system must also prevent the following security
threats related to IPFIX Mediation:
o Attacks against IPFIX Mediator
IPFIX Mediators can be considered as a prime target for attacks,
as an alternative to IPFIX Exporters and Collectors. IPFIX
Proxies or Masquerading Proxies need to prevent unauthorized
access or denial-of-service (DoS) attacks from untrusted public
networks.
o Man-in-the-middle attack by untrusted IPFIX Mediator
The Collector-Mediator-Exporter structure model would increase the
risk of the man-in-the-middle attack.
o Configuration on IPFIX Mediation
In the case of IPFIX Distributors and IPFIX Masquerading Proxies,
an accidental misconfiguration and unauthorized access to
configuration data could lead to the crucial problem of disclosure
of confidential traffic data.
Kobayashi, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Mediation Problem Statement July 2009
9. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
Kobayashi, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Mediation Problem Statement July 2009
10. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the following persons: Gerhard Muenz for the
thorough detail review and significant contribution regarding the
improvement of whole sections; Keisuke Ishibashi for contribution
during the initial phases of the document; Brian Trammel for
contribution regarding the improvement of terminologies section;
Nevil Brownlee, Juergen Schoenwaelder, Motonori Shindo for the
technical reviews and feedback.
Kobayashi, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Mediation Problem Statement July 2009
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC5101] Claise, B., "Specification of the IP Flow Information
Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of IP Traffic
Flow Information", January 2008.
[RFC5476] Claise, B., "Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Protocol
Specifications", March 2009.
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-ipfix-file]
Trammell, B., Boschi, E., Mark, L., Zseby, T., and A.
Wagner, "Specification of the IPFIX File Format",
draft-ietf-ipfix-file-04 (work in progress) , July 2009.
[I-D.ietf-ipfix-mib]
Dietz, T., Claise, B., and A. Kobayashi, "Definitions of
Managed Objects for IP Flow Information Export",
draft-ietf-ipfix-mib-06 (work in progress) , March 2009.
[I-D.ietf-psamp-mib]
Dietz, T. and B. Claise, "Definitions of Managed Objects
for Packet Sampling", draft-ietf-psamp-mib-06 (work in
progress) , June 2006.
[RFC3917] Quittek, J., Zseby, T., Claise, B., and S. Zander,
"Requirements for IP Flow Information Export(IPFIX)",
October 2004.
[RFC3954] Claise, B., "Cisco Systems NetFlow Services Export Version
9", October 2004.
[RFC5102] Quittek, J., Bryant, S., Claise, B., Aitken, P., and J.
Meyer, "Information Model for IP Flow Information Export",
January 2008.
[RFC5470] Sadasivan, G., Brownlee, N., Claise, B., and J. Quittek,
"Architecture for IP Flow Information Export", March 2009.
[RFC5472] Zseby, T., Boschi, E., Brownlee, N., and B. Claise, "IP
Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Applicability",
March 2009.
[RFC5474] Duffield, N., "A Framework for Packet Selection and
Reporting", March 2009.
Kobayashi, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Mediation Problem Statement July 2009
[RFC5475] Zseby, T., Molina, M., Duffield, N., Niccolini, S., and F.
Raspall, "Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet
Selection", March 2009.
[RFC5477] Dietz, T., Claise, B., Aitken, P., Dressler, F., and G.
Carle, "Information Model for Packet Sampling Exports",
March 2009.
[TRAFGRW] Cho, K., Fukuda, K., Esaki, H., and A. Kato, "The Impact
and Implications of the Growth in Residential User-to-User
Traffic", SIGCOMM2006, pp. 207-218, Pisa, Italy, September
2006. .
Kobayashi, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Mediation Problem Statement July 2009
Authors' Addresses
Atsushi Kobayashi
NTT Information Sharing Platform Laboratories
3-9-11 Midori-cho
Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585
Japan
Phone: +81-422-59-3978
Email: akoba@nttv6.net
Benoit Claise
Cisco Systems, Inc.
De Kleetlaan 6a b1
Diegem 1831
Belgium
Phone: +32 2 704 5622
Email: bclaise@cisco.com
Haruhiko Nishida
NTT Information Sharing Platform Laboratories
3-9-11 Midori-cho
Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585
Japan
Phone: +81-422-59-3978
Email: nishida.haruhiko@lab.ntt.co.jp
Christoph Sommer
University of Erlangen-Nuremberg
Department of Computer Science 7
Martensstr. 3
Erlangen 91058
Germany
Phone: +49 9131 85-27993
Email: christoph.sommer@informatik.uni-erlangen.de
URI: http://www7.informatik.uni-erlangen.de/~sommer/
Kobayashi, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Mediation Problem Statement July 2009
Falko Dressler
University of Erlangen-Nuremberg
Department of Computer Science 7
Martensstr. 3
Erlangen 91058
Germany
Phone: +49 9131 85-27914
Email: dressler@informatik.uni-erlangen.de
URI: http://www7.informatik.uni-erlangen.de/~dressler/
Stephan Emile
France Telecom
2 avenue Pierre Marzin
Lannion, F-22307
Fax: +33 2 96 05 18 52
Email: emile.stephan@orange-ftgroup.com
Kobayashi, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 31]
