wdiff rfc5103.original rfc5103.txt

IPFIX
Network Working Group B. Trammell
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 5103 CERT/NetSA
Intended status:
Category: Standards Track E. Boschi
Expires: December 23, 2007
Hitachi Europe
June 21,
December 2007

Bidirectional Flow Export using IPFIX
draft-ietf-ipfix-biflow-05.txt Using IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)

Status of this 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

This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, community, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid requests discussion and suggestions for a maximum
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of six months the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
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 status of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

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

This Internet-Draft will expire on December 23, 2007. this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

This document describes an efficient method for exporting
bidirectional flow (Biflow) information using the IP Flow Information
Export (IPFIX) protocol, representing each Biflow using a single Flow
Record.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. IPFIX Documents Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Rationale and History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Biflow Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Direction Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Direction by Initiator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Direction by Perimeter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3. Arbitrary Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Record Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. Reverse Information Element Private Enterprise Number . . 11
6.2. Enterprise-Specific Reverse Information Elements . . . . . 13
6.3. biflowDirection Information Element . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 15
Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix B. XML Specification of biflowDirection Information
Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 23

1. Introduction

Many flow analysis tasks benefit from association of the upstream and
downstream flows of a bidirectional communication, e.g., separating
answered and unanswered TCP requests, calculating round trip times,
etc. Metering processes that are not part of an asymmetric routing
infrastructure, especially those deployed at a single point through
which bidirectional traffic flows, are well positioned to observe
bidirectional flows (Biflows). In such topologies, the total
resource requirements for Biflow assembly are often lower if the
Biflows are assembled at the measurement interface as opposed to the
collector.
Collector. The IPFIX Protocol requires only information model
extensions to be complete as a solution for exporting Biflow data.

To that end, we propose a Biflow export method using a single Flow
Record per Biflow in this document. We explore the semantics of
bidirectional flow data in section Section 4, "Biflow Semantics"; examine the
various possibilities for determining the direction of Biflows in the
section
Section 5, "Direction Assignment"; then define the Biflow export
method in section Section 6, "Record Representation".

This export method requires additional Information Elements to
represent data values for the reverse direction of each Biflow, and a
single additional Information Element to represent direction
assignment information, as described in sections Sections 6.1 through 6.3.
The selection of this method was motivated by an exploration of other
possible methods of Biflow export using IPFIX; however, these methods
have important drawbacks, as discussed in section Section 3, "Rationale and
History".

1.1. IPFIX Documents Overview

"Specification of the IPFIX Protocol for the Exchange of IP Traffic
Flow Information" [I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol] [RFC5101] (informally, the IPFIX Protocol document)
and its associated documents define the IPFIX Protocol, which
provides network engineers and administrators with access to IP
traffic flow information.

"Architecture for IP Flow Information Export"
[I-D.ietf-ipfix-architecture] [IPFIX-ARCH] (the IPFIX
Architecture document) defines the architecture for the export of
measured IP flow information out of an IPFIX Exporting Process to an
IPFIX Collecting Process, and the basic terminology used to describe
the elements of this architecture, per the requirements defined in
"Requirements for IP Flow Information Export" [RFC3917]. The IPFIX
Protocol document [RFC5101] then covers the details of the method for
transporting IPFIX data records and templates via a congestion-aware
transport protocol from an IPFIX Exporting Process to an IPFIX
Collecting Process.

"Information Model for IP Flow Information Export"
[I-D.ietf-ipfix-info] [RFC5102]
(informally, the IPFIX Information Model document) describes the
Information Elements used by IPFIX, including details on Information
Element naming, numbering, and data type encoding. Finally, "IPFIX
Applicability" [I-D.ietf-ipfix-as] [IPFIX-AS] describes the various applications of the
IPFIX protocol and their use of information exported via IPFIX, and
relates the IPFIX architecture to other measurement architectures and
frameworks.

This document references the Protocol and Architecture documents for
terminology, uses the IPFIX Protocol to define an a bidirectional flow
export method, and proposes additions to the information model
defined in the IPFIX Information Model document.

2. Terminology

Capitalized terms used in this document that are defined in the
Terminology section of the IPFIX Protocol document
[I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol] [RFC5101] are to
be interpreted as defined there. The following additional terms are
defined in terms of the protocol IPFIX Protocol document terminology.

Directional Key Field: A Directional Key Field is a single field in
a Flow Key as defined in the IPFIX Protocol document
[I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol] [RFC5101]
that is specifically associated with a single endpoint of the
Flow. sourceIPv4Address and destinationTransportPort are example
common directional key fields.

Non-directional Key Field: A Non-directional Key Field is a single
field within a Flow Key as defined in the IPFIX Protocol document
[I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol]
[RFC5101] that is not specifically associated with either endpoint
of the Flow. protocolIdentifier is an example common non-directional non-
directional key field.

Uniflow (Unidirectional Flow): A Uniflow is a Flow as defined in the
IPFIX Protocol document [I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol], [RFC5101], restricted such that the Flow
is composed only of packets sent from a single endpoint to another
single endpoint.

Biflow (Bidirectional Flow): A Biflow is a Flow as defined in the
IPFIX Protocol document [I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol], [RFC5101], composed of packets sent in
both directions between two endpoints. A Biflow is composed from
two Uniflows such that:

1. the value of each Non-directional Key Field of each Uniflow is
identical to its counterpart in the other, and

2. the value of each Directional Key Field of each Uniflow is
identical to its reverse direction counterpart in the other other.

A Biflow contains two Non-Key Fields for each value it represents
associated with a single direction or endpoint: one for the
forward direction and one for the reverse direction, as defined
below.

Biflow Source: The source of a Biflow is the endpoint identified by
the source Directional Key Fields in the Biflow.

Biflow Destination: The destination of a Biflow is the endpoint
identified by the destination Directional Key Fields in the
Biflow.

Forward direction (of a Biflow): The direction of a Biflow composed
of packets sent by the Biflow Source. Values associated with the
forward direction of a Biflow are represented using normal
Information Elements. In other words, a Uniflow may be defined as
a Biflow having only a forward direction.

Reverse direction (of a Biflow): The direction of a Biflow composed
of packets sent by the Biflow Destination. Values associated with
the reverse direction of a Biflow are represented using reverse
Information Elements, as defined below.

Reverse Information Element: An Information Element defined as
corresponding to a normal Information Element, but associated with
the reverse direction of a Biflow.

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].

3. Rationale and History

In selecting the Single Record Biflow export method described in this
document as the recommendation for bidirectional flow export using
IPFIX, we considered several other possible methods.

The first and most obvious would be simply to export Biflows as two
uniflows
Uniflows adjacent in the record stream; a Collecting Process could
then reassemble them with minimal state requirements. However, this
has the drawbacks that it is merely an informal arrangement the
Collecting Process cannot rely upon, and that it is not bandwidth-
efficient, duplicating the export of Flow Key data in each Uniflow
record.

We then considered the method outlined in Reducing Redundancy in
IPFIX and PSAMP Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Reports [I-D.ietf-ipfix-reducing-redundancy] [IPFIX-REDUCING] for
reducing this bandwidth inefficiency. This would also formally link
the two Uniflows into a single construct, by exporting the Flow Key
as Common Properties then exporting each direction's information as
Specific Properties. However, it would do so at the expense of
additional overhead to transmit the commonPropertiesId, and
additional state management requirements at both the Collecting and
Exporting Process.

A proposal was made on the IPFIX mailing list to use the Multiple
Information Element feature of the protocol to export forward and
reverse counters using identical Information Element in the same Flow
Record. In this approach, the first instance of a counter would
represent the forward direction, and the second instance of the same
counter would represent the reverse. This had the disadvantage of
conflicting with the presently defined semantics for these counters,
and, as such, was abandoned.

4. Biflow Semantics

As stated in the Terminology section above, a Biflow is simply a Flow
representing packets flowing in both directions between two endpoints
on a network. There are compelling reasons to treat Biflows as
single entities (as opposed to merely ad-hoc combinations of
Uniflows) within IPFIX. First, as most application-layer network
protocols are inherently bidirectional, a Biflow-based data model
more accurately represents the behavior of the network, and enables
easier application of flow data to answering interesting questions
about network behavior. Second, exporting Biflow data can result in
improved export efficiency by eliminating the duplication of Flow Key
data in an IPFIX message stream, and improve collection efficiency by
removing the burden of Biflow matching from the Collecting Process
where possible.

Biflows are somewhat more semantically complicated than Uniflows.
First, when handling Uniflows, the semantics of "source" and
"destination" Information Elements are clearly defined by the
semantics of the underlying packet header data: the source
Information Elements represent the source header fields, and the
destination Information Elements represent the destination header
fields. When representing Biflows with single IPFIX Data Records,
the definitions of source and destination must be chosen more
carefully.

As in the Terminology section above, we define the Source of a Biflow
to be that identified by the source Directional Key Field(s), and the
Destination of the Biflow to be that identified by the destination
Directional Key Field(s). Note that, for IANA-registered Information
Elements
Elements, or those defined by the IPFIX Information Model
[I-D.ietf-ipfix-info], [RFC5102],
Directional Key Fields associated with the Biflow Source are
represented by Information Elements whose names begin with "source",
and Directional Key Fields associated with the Biflow Destination are
represented by Information Elements whose names begin with
"destination"; it is recommended that vendor-
specific information elements vendor-specific Information
Elements follow these conventions, as well.

Methods for assignment of Source and Destination by the Metering and
Exporting Processes are described in the following section.

As the Source and Destination of a Biflow are defined in terms of its
Directional Keys, Biflow values are also split info "forward" and
"reverse" directions. As in the Terminology section above, the
Forward direction of a Biflow is composed of packets sent by the
Biflow Source, and the Reverse direction of a Biflow is composed of
packets sent by the Destination. In other words, the two directions
of a Biflow may be roughly thought of as the two Uniflows that were
matched to compose the Biflow. A Biflow record, then, contains each
Flow Key record once, and both forward and reverse direction
information elements
Information Elements for each non-key field. See Figure 1 for an
illustration of the composition of Biflows from Uniflows.

Figure 1: Bidirectional Flow Conceptual Diagram

The Reverse direction values are represented by Reverse Information
Elements. The representation of these Reverse Information Elements
within Templates is detailed in section Section 5. A Flow Record may be
considered to be a Biflow Record by the Collecting Process if it
contains at least one Reverse Information Element AND at least one
Directional Key Field. Flow Records containing Reverse Information
Elements but no Directional Key Fields are illegal, MUST NOT be sent
by the Exporting Process, and SHOULD be dropped by the Collecting
Process. The Collecting Process SHOULD log the receipt of illegal
Biflow Flow Records.

When exporting Uniflows, Exporting Processes SHOULD use a Template
containing no Reverse Information Elements. Note that a Template
whose only Reverse Information Elements are counters MAY be used to
export Uniflows, as counters with values of 0 are semantically
equivalent to no reverse direction. However, this approach is not
possible for reverse Information Elements whose zero values have a
distinct meaning (e.g., tcpControlBits).

Note that a Biflow traversing a middlebox [RFC3234] may show
different Flow properties on each side of the middlebox due to
changes to the packet header or payload performed by the middlebox
itself. Therefore Therefore, it MUST be clear at a Collecting Process whether
packets were observed and metered before or after modification. The
Observation Process SHOULD be located on one side of a middlebox middlebox, and
the Exporting Process SHOULD communicate to the Collecting Process
both the incoming value of the Flow property changed within the
middlebox and the changed value on the "other side". The IPFIX
Information Model [I-D.ietf-ipfix-info] [RFC5102] provides Information Elements with prefix
"post" for this purpose. The location of the Observation Point(s)
with respect to the middlebox can be communicated using Options with
Observation Point as Scope and elements such as lineCardID or
samplerID.

For further information on the effect of middleboxes within the IPFIX
architecture, refer to section Section 7 of the IPFIX Implementation
Guidelines [I-D.ietf-ipfix-implementation-guidelines]. [IPFIX-IMPLEMENTATION].

By the definition of Observation Domain in section Section 2 of the IPFIX
Protocol document [I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol], [RFC5101], Biflows may be composed only of packets
observed within the same Observation Domain. This implies that
Metering Processes that build Biflows out of Uniflows must ensure
that the two Uniflows were observed within the same Observation
Domain.

5. Direction Assignment

Due to the variety of flow measurement applications and restrictions
on Metering Process deployment, one single method of assigning the
directions of a Biflow will not apply in all cases. This section
describes three methods of direction assignment, and recommend recommends them
based upon Metering Process position and measurement application
requirements. In each of the figures in this section, the "MP" box
represents the Metering Process.

As the method selection is dependent on Metering Process position, it
is sufficient to configure the direction assignment method at the
Collecting and/or the Exporting Process out-of-band. For example, a
Collecting Process might be configured that a specific Exporting
Process identified by exporterIPv4Address is assigning direction by
initiator; or both an a Collecting Process and an Exporting Process
could be simultaneously configured with a specific direction
assignment perimeter. However, for Exporting Processes that use
multiple direction selection methods, or for Collecting Processes
accepting data from Exporting Processes using a variety of methods, a
biflowDirection Information Element is provided for optional
representation of direction assignment information.

5.1. Direction by Initiator

If the measurement application requires the determination of the
initiator and responder of a given communication, the Metering
Process SHOULD define the Biflow Source to be the initiator of the
Biflow, where possible. This can be roughly approximated by a
Metering Process observing packets in both directions simply assuming
that the first packet seen in a given Biflow is the packet initiating
the Biflow. A Metering Process may improve upon this method by using
knowledge of the transport or application protocols (e.g., TCP flags,
DNS question/answer counts) to better approximate the flow-initiating
packet.

Note that direction assignment by initiator is most easily done by a
single Metering Process positioned on a local link layer, as in
Figure 2, or a single Metering Process observing bidirectional packet
flows at a symmetric perimeter routing point, as in Figure 3.

Note also that many Metering Processes have an "active" timeout, such
that any Flow with a duration longer than the active timeout is
expired and any further packets belonging to that Flow are accounted
for as part of a new Flow. This mechanism may cause issues with the
assumption that a first packet seen is from the flow initiator, if
the "first" packet is a middle packet in a long-duration Flow.

+-------+ +-------+
| node | | node |
+---+---+ +---+---+
| | +---------+
<===+=====+=====+======>+ +<===> Internet
| | router |
+---+---+ +---------+
| MP |
+---+---+

Figure 3: Symmetric Routing Point Metering Process Position

5.2. Direction by Perimeter

If the measurement application is deployed at a network perimeter, as
illustrated in Figure 4, such that there is a stable set of addresses
that can be defined as "inside" that perimeter, and there is no
measurement application requirement to determine the initiator and
responder of a given communication, then the Metering Process SHOULD
assign the Biflow Source to be the endpoint outside the perimeter.

No facility is provided for exporting the address set defining the
interior of a perimeter; this set may be deduced by the Collecting
Process observing the set of Biflow source or destination addresses,
or configured out-of-band.

Figure 4: Perimeter Metering Process Position

5.3. Arbitrary Direction

If the measurement application is deployed in a network core, such
that there is no stable set of addresses defining a perimeter (e.g.,
due to BGP updates), as in Figure 5, and no requirement or ability to
determine the initiator or responder of a given communication, then
the Metering Process MAY assign the Biflow Source and Biflow
Destination endpoints arbitrarily.

In this case, the Metering Process SHOULD be consistent in its choice
of direction. Once assigned, direction SHOULD be maintained for the
lifetime of the Biflow, even in the case of active timeout of a long-
lived Biflow.

|
V
+----+----+ +---------+
<===+ core | | core +===>
| router +<========>+ router |
===>+ | | +<===
+----+----+ +----+----+
| |
+---+---+ V
| MP |
+-------+

Figure 5: Transit/Core Metering Process Position

6. Record Representation

As noted above, Biflows are exported using a single Flow Record, each
of which contains the Flow Key fields once, and both forward and
reverse direction information elements Information Elements for each non-key field. The
IPFIX Information Model is extended to provide a "reverse"
Information Element counterpart to each presently defined "forward"
Information Element, as required by any Information Element that may
be a non-key field in a Biflow.

6.1. Reverse Information Element Private Enterprise Number

Reverse Information Elements are specified as a separate "dimension"
in the Information Element space, by having IANA assign a single
Private Enterprise Number (PEN) to this document, and to define that
PEN to signify "IPFIX Reverse Information Element" (the Reverse PEN).
This reverse PEN would serve as a "reverse direction flag" in the
template; each Information Element number within this PEN space would
be assigned to the reverse counterpart of the corresponding IANA-
assigned public Information Element number. In other words, to
generate a reverse information element Information Element in a template corresponding to
a given forward information element, Information Element, simply set the enterprise bit
and define the Information Element within the Reverse PEN space, as
in Figure 6 below.

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| flowStartSeconds 150 | Field Length = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

forward |
|
reverse V

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1| (rev) flowStartSeconds 150 | Field Length = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| reverse PEN TBD1 29305 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 6: Example Mapping between Forward and Reverse IEs

As the Reverse Information Element dimension is treated explicitly as
such, new Information Elements can be added freely to the IANA-
managed space without concern for whether a reverse element should
also be added. Aside from the initial allocation of an enterprise
number for this purpose, there is no additional maintenance overhead
for supporting Reverse Information Elements in the IPFIX Information
Model.

Note that certain Information Elements in the IPFIX Information Model
[I-D.ietf-ipfix-info]
[RFC5102] are not reversible; that is, they are semantically
meaningless as reverse Information Elements. An Exporting Process
MUST NOT export a Template containing the reverse counterpart of a
non-reversible Information Element. A Collecting Process receiving
the reverse counterpart of a non-reversible Information Element MAY
discard that Information Element from the Flow Record. Non-reversible Non-
reversible Information Elements represent properties of the Biflow
record as a whole, or are intended for internal the use of the IPFIX
Protocol itself. Therefore, by definition, they cannot be associated
with a single direction or endpoint of the Flow.

The following specific Information Elements are not reversible:

1. Identifiers defined in section Section 5.1 of the Information Model which [RFC5102] that cannot be
associated with a single direction of Uniflow collection: flowId
(5.1.7), templateId (5.1.8), observationDomainId (5.1.9), and
commonPropertiesId (5.1.11).

2. Process configuration elements defined in section Section 5.2 of the
Information Model.
[RFC5102].

3. Process statistics elements defined in section Section 5.3 of the
Information Model. [RFC5102].

4. paddingOctets (5.12.1). defined in Section 5.12.1 of [RFC5102].

5. biflowDirection (defined in section Section 6.3 of this document).

Any future addition to the Information Element Registry by IANA which that
meets the criteria defined above SHOULD also be considered to be non-
reversible by the Collecting Process.

Note that Information Elements commonly used as Flow Keys (e.g. (e.g.,
header fields defined in sections Sections 5.4 and 5.5 of the Information
Model) are reversible, as they may be used as value fields in certain
contexts, as when associating ICMP error messages with the flows that
caused them.

6.2. Enterprise-Specific Reverse Information Elements

Note that the Reverse PEN defined above is only available for
allocating reverse counterparts of IANA-registered IPFIX Information
Elements. No facility is provided for allocating reverse
counterparts of enterprise-specific Information Elements.

The allocation of enterprise-specific Information Elements for IPFIX
is left to the discretion of the enterprise allocating them. Note
that, as enterprise-specific Information Elements are designed for
the internal use of private enterprises, the lack of any guidance or
standard on Information Element allocation policies poses no
interoperability issues. However, if a private enterprise's own
Information Element registry anticipates the allocation of reversible
Information Elements, and the use of this specification for the
export of Biflow data, that registry MAY reserve one of the fifteen
available bits in the Information Element ID to signify the reverse
direction. For example, if the most significant bit were selected,
this would reserve Information Element IDs 0x4000 to 0x7FFF for the
reverse direction of Information Element IDs 0x0000 to 0x3FFF.

6.3. biflowDirection Information Element

Description: A description of the direction assignment method used
to assign source and destination to this Biflow. This Information
Element MAY be present in a Flow Data Record, or applied to all
flows exported from an Exporting Process or Observation Domain
using IPFIX Options. If this Information Element is not present
in a Flow Record or associated with a Biflow via scope, it is
assumed that the configuration of the direction assignment method
is done out-of-band. Note that when using IPFIX Options to apply
this Information Element to all flows within an Observation Domain
or from an Exporting Process, the Option SHOULD be sent reliably.
If reliable transport is not available (i.e., when using UDP),
this Information Element SHOULD appear in each Flow Record. This
field may take the following values:

Abstract Data Type: octet

Data Type Semantics: identifier

ElementId: TBD2 239

Status: current

7. IANA Considerations

This document specifies the creation of a new dimension in the
information element
Information Element space defined by the IPFIX Information Model
[I-D.ietf-ipfix-info].
[RFC5102]. This new dimension is defined by the allocation of a new
Private Enterprise Number (PEN). The Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA) has assigned private enterprise number TBD1 29305 to this
document as the "IPFIX Reverse Information Element Private
Enterprise", with this document's authors as point of contact.

[NOTE for IANA: The text TBD1 should be replaced with the assigned
private enterprise number where it appears in this document.]

This document specifies the creation of a new IPFIX Information
Element, biflowDirection, as defined in section Section 6.3. IANA has
assigned Information Element number TBD2 239 in the IPFIX Information
Element registry for the biflowDirection information element. Information Element. The
values defined for this information element Information Element are static, and as such
do not need to be maintained by IANA in a subregistry.

[NOTE for IANA: The text TBD2 should be replaced with the assigned
biflowDirection Information Element number where it appears in this
document.] sub-registry.

8. Security Considerations

The same security considerations as for the IPFIX Protocol
[I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol] [RFC5101]
apply.

9. Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Lutz Mark, Juergen Quittek, Andrew Johnson,
Paul Aitken, Benoit Claise, and Carsten Schmoll for their
contributions and comments. Special thanks to Michelle Cotton for
her assistance in navigating the IANA process for enterprise number
assignment, and for the IANA pre-review of the document.

10. References

10.1. Normative References

[I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol]

[RFC5101] Claise, B., Ed., "Specification of the IPFIX IP
Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for
the
Exchange", draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-24 (work in
progress), November 2006.

[I-D.ietf-ipfix-info] Exchange of IP Traffic Flow Information",
RFC 5101, December 2007.

[RFC5102] Quittek, J., Bryant, S., Claise, B., Aitken,
P., and J. Meyer, "Information Model for IP
Flow Information Export", draft-ietf-ipfix-info-15 (work in progress),
February RFC 5102,
December 2007.

10.2. Informative References

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

[RFC3234] Carpenter, B. and S. Brim, "Middleboxes:
Taxonomy and Issues", RFC 3234,
February 2002.

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

[I-D.ietf-ipfix-architecture]

[IPFIX-ARCH] Sadasivan, G., Brownlee, N., Claise, B., and
J. Quittek, "Architecture for IP Flow
Information Export", draft-ietf-ipfix-architecture-12 (work Work in
progress), Progress,
September 2006.

[I-D.ietf-ipfix-as]

[IPFIX-AS] Zseby, T., Boschi, E., Brownlee, N., and B.
Claise, "IPFIX Applicability", draft-ietf-ipfix-as-11
(work Work
in progress), February Progress, July 2007.

[I-D.ietf-ipfix-implementation-guidelines]

[IPFIX-IMPLEMENTATION] Boschi, E., Mark, L., Quittek, j.,
Stiemerling, M., and P. Aitken, "IPFIX
Implementation Guidelines",
draft-ietf-ipfix-implementation-guidelines-05 (work Work in
progress), June Progress,
September 2007.

[I-D.ietf-ipfix-reducing-redundancy]

[IPFIX-REDUCING] Boschi, E., Mark, L., and B. Claise,
"Reducing Redundancy in IP Flow Information
Export (IPFIX) and Packet Sampling (PSAMP)
Reports",
draft-ietf-ipfix-reducing-redundancy-04 (work Work in
progress), Progress, May 2007.

Appendix A. Examples

The following example describes a Biflow record as specified in
section
Section 6, above. The "IPFIX Reverse Information Element" PEN is
assigned for the purpose of differentiating forward from reverse
information elements.

The information exported in this case is:

o The start time of the flow: flowStartSeconds in the IPFIX
Information Model [I-D.ietf-ipfix-info], [RFC5102], with a length of 4 octets octets.

o The reverse start time of the flow: flowStartSeconds in the IPFIX
Information Model [I-D.ietf-ipfix-info], [RFC5102], with a length of 4 octets, and the
enterprise bit set to 1. The following PEN is the Reverse PEN.

o The IPv4 source IP address: sourceIPv4Address in the IPFIX
Information Model [I-D.ietf-ipfix-info], [RFC5102], with a length of 4 octets octets.

o The IPv4 destination IP address:destinationIPv4Address in the
IPFIX Information Model [I-D.ietf-ipfix-info], [RFC5102], with a length of 4
octets octets.

o The source port: sourceTransportPort in the IPFIX Information
Model [I-D.ietf-ipfix-info], [RFC5102], with a length of 2 octets octets.

o The destination port: destinationTransportPort in the IPFIX
Information Model [I-D.ietf-ipfix-info], [RFC5102], with a length of 2 octets octets.

o The protocol identifier: protocolIdentifier in the IPFIX
Information Model [I-D.ietf-ipfix-info], [RFC5102], with a length of 1 octet octet.

o The number of octets of the Flow: octetTotalCount in the IPFIX
Information Model [I-D.ietf-ipfix-info], [RFC5102], with a length of 4 octets octets.

o The reverse number of octets of the Flow: octetTotalCount in the
IPFIX Information Model [I-D.ietf-ipfix-info], [RFC5102], with a length of 4 octets, and
the enterprise bit set to 1. The following PEN is the Reverse
PEN.

o The number of packets of the Flow: packetTotalCount in the IPFIX
Information Model [I-D.ietf-ipfix-info], [RFC5102], with a length of 4 octets octets.

o The reverse number of packets of the Flow: packetTotalCount in the
IPFIX Information Model [I-D.ietf-ipfix-info], [RFC5102], with a length of 4 octets, and
the enterprise bit set to 1. The following PEN is the Reverse
PEN.

and the resulting template would look like the diagram below:

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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Set ID = 2 | Length = 64 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Template ID >= 256 | Field Count = 11 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| flowStartSeconds 150 | Field Length = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1| flowStartSeconds 150 | Field Length = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| reverse PEN TBD1 29305 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| sourceIPv4Address 8 | Field Length = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| destinationIPv4Address 12 | Field Length = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| sourceTransportPort 7 | Field Length = 2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| destinationTransportPort 11 | Field Length = 2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| protocolIdentifier 4 | Field Length = 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| octetTotalCount 85 | Field Length = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1| octetTotalCount 85 | Field Length = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| reverse PEN TBD1 29305 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| packetTotalCount 86 | Field Length = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1| packetTotalCount 86 | Field Length = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| reverse PEN TBD1 29305 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 7: Single Record Biflow Template Set

The following example data record represents a typical HTTP
transaction. Its format is defined by the example template, above.

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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Set ID >= 256 | Length = 41 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 2006-02-01 17:00:00 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 2006-02-01 17:00:01 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 192.0.2.2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 192.0.2.3 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 32770 | 80 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 6 | 18000 . . .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. . . | 128000 . . .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. . . | 65 . . .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. . . | 110 . . .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 8: Single Record Biflow Data Set

The following example demonstrates the use of the biflowDirection
Information Element, as specified in section Section 6.2, using the IPFIX
Options mechanism to specify that perimeter direction selection is in
effect for a given Observation Domain.

The information exported in this case is:

o The Observation Domain: observationDomainId in the IPFIX
Information Model [I-D.ietf-ipfix-info], [RFC5102], with a length of 4 octets octets.

o The direction assignment method: biflowDirection as defined in
section
Section 6.2, above, with a length of 1 octet.

and the resulting template would look like the diagram below:

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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Set ID = 3 | Length = 18 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Template ID >= 256 | Field Count = 2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Scope Count = 1 |0| observationDomainId 149 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Field Length = 4 |0| biflowDirection TBD2 239 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Field Length = 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 9: Biflow Direction Options Template Set

The following example data record would specify that perimeter
direction selection is in effect for the Observation Domain with ID
33. Its format is defined by the example template, above. Note that
this example data set would be sent reliably, as specified in the
description of the biflowDirection Information Element.

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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Set ID >= 256 | Length = 9 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 33 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 3 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 10: Biflow Direction Options Data Set

Appendix B. XML Specification of biflowDirection Information Element

This appendix contains a machine-readable description of the
biflowDirection information element defined in this document, coded
in XML. Note that this appendix is of informational nature, while
the text in section Section 6.3 is normative.

The format in which this specification is given is described by the
XML Schema in Appendix B of the IPFIX Information Model
[I-D.ietf-ipfix-info]. [RFC5102].

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<field name="biflowDirection" dataType="unsigned8"
dataTypeSemantics="identifier" group="misc"
elementId="TBD2"
elementId="239" applicability="all" status="current">
<description>
<paragraph>
A description of the direction assignment method used to
assign source and destination to this Biflow. This
Information Element MAY be present in a Flow Data Record, or
applied to all flows exported from an Exporting Process or
Observation Domain using IPFIX Options. If this Information
Element is not present in a Flow Record or associated with a
Biflow via scope, it is assumed that the configuration of
the direction assignment method is done out-of-band. Note
that when using IPFIX Options to apply this Information
Element to all flows within an Observation Domain or from an
Exporting Process, the Option SHOULD be sent reliably. If
reliable transport is not available (i.e., when using UDP),
this Information Element SHOULD appear in each Flow
Record. This field may take the following values:
</paragraph>
<artwork>
+-------+------------------+----------------------------------------+
| Value | Name | Description |
+-------+------------------+----------------------------------------+
| 0x00 | arbitrary | Direction was assigned arbitrarily. |
| 0x01 | initiator | The Biflow Source is the flow |
| | | initiator, as determined by the |
| | | Metering Process' best effort to |
| | | detect the initiator. |
| 0x02 | reverseInitiator | The Biflow Destination is the flow |
| | | initiator, as determined by the |
| | | Metering Process' best effort to |
| | | detect the initiator. This value is |
| | | provided for the convenience of |
| | | Exporting Processes to revise an |
| | | initiator estimate without re-encoding |
| | | the Biflow Record. |
| 0x03 | perimeter | The Biflow Source is the endpoint |
| | | outside of a defined perimeter. The |
| | | perimeter's definition is implicit in |
| | | the set of Biflow Source and Biflow |
| | | Destination addresses exported in the |
| | | Biflow Records. |
+-------+------------------+----------------------------------------+
</artwork>
</description>
</field>
</fieldDefinitions>

Authors' Addresses

Brian H. Trammell
CERT Network Situational Awareness
Software Engineering Institute
4500 Fifth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
US

Phone: +1 412 268 9748
Email:
EMail: bht@cert.org

Elisa Boschi
Hitachi Europe SAS
Immeuble Le Theleme
1503 Route les Dolines
06560 Valbonne
France

Phone: +33 4 89874100
Email:
EMail: elisa.boschi@hitachi-eu.com

Full Copyright Statement

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.

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, THE IETF TRUST 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.

Intellectual Property

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.

Acknowledgment

Acknowledgement

Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).