RFC 5655
Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) File Format
9. Signing and Encryption of IPFIX Files
In order to ensure the integrity of IPFIX Files and the identity of IPFIX File Writers, File Writers and File Readers SHOULD provide for an interoperable and easily implemented method for signing IPFIX Files, and verifying those signatures. This section specifies method via CMS detached signatures. Note that while CMS specifies an encapsulation format that can be used for encryption as well as signing, no method is specified for encapsulation for confidentiality protection. It is assumed that application-specific or process-specific requirements outweigh the need for interoperability for encrypted files.9.1. CMS Detached Signatures
The Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) [RFC3852] defines an encapsulation syntax for data protection, used to digitally sign, authenticate, or encrypt arbitrary message content. CMS can also be used to create detached signatures, in which the signature is stored in a separate file. This arrangement maximizes interoperability, as File Readers that are not aware of CMS detached signatures and have no requirement for them can simply ignore them; the content of the IPFIX File itself is unchanged by the signature. The detached signature file for an IPFIX File SHOULD be stored, transported, or otherwise made available (e.g., by FTP or HTTP) alongside the signed IPFIX File, with the same filename as the IPFIX File, except that the file extension ".p7s" is added to the end, conforming to the naming convention in [RFC3851]. Within the detached signature, the CMS ContentInfo type MUST always be present, and it MUST encapsulate the CMS SignedData content type, which in turn MUST NOT encapsulate the signed IPFIX File content. The CMS detached signature is summarized as follows:
ContentInfo {
contentType id-signedData, -- (1.2.840.113549.1.7.2)
content SignedData
}
SignedData {
version CMSVersion, -- Always set to 3
digestAlgorithms DigestAlgorithmIdentifiers,
encapContentInfo EncapsulatedContentInfo,
certificates CertificateSet, -- File Writer certificate(s)
crls CertificateRevocationLists, -- Optional
signerInfos SET OF SignerInfo -- Only one signer
}
SignerInfo {
version CMSVersion, -- Always set to 3
sid SignerIdentifier,
digestAlgorithm DigestAlgorithmIdentifier,
signedAttrs SignedAttributes,
signatureAlgorithm SignatureAlgorithmIdentifier,
signature SignatureValue,
unsignedAttrs UnsignedAttributes
}
EncapsulatedContentInfo {
eContentType id-data, -- (1.2.840.113549.1.7.1)
eContent OCTET STRING -- Always absent
}
The details of the contents of each CMS encapsulation are detailed in
the subsections below.
9.1.1. ContentInfo
[RFC3852] requires the outer-most encapsulation to be ContentInfo;
the fields of ContentInfo are as follows:
contentType: the type of the associated content. For the detached
signature file, the encapsulated type is always SignedData, so the
id-signedData (1.2.840.113549.1.7.2) object identifier MUST be
present in this field.
content: a SignedData content, detailed in Section 9.1.2.
9.1.2. SignedData
The SignedData content type contains the signature of the IPFIX File and information to aid in validation; the fields of SignedData are as follows: version: MUST be 3. digestAlgorithms: a collection of one-way hash function identifiers. It MUST contain the identifier used by the File Writer to generate the digital signature. encapContentInfo: the signed content, including a content type identifier. Since a detached signature is being created, it does not encapsulate the IPFIX File. The EncapsulatedContentInfo is detailed in Section 9.1.4. certificates: a collection of certificates. It SHOULD include the X.509 certificate needed to validate the digital signature file. Certification Authority (CA) and File Writer certificates MUST conform to the certificate profile specified in [RFC5280]. crls: an optional collection of certificate revocation lists (CRLs). It SHOULD NOT contain any CRLs; any CRLs that are present MUST conform to the certificate profile specified in [RFC5280]. signerInfos: a collection of per-signer information; this identifies the File Writer. More than one SignerInfo MAY appear to facilitate transitions between keys or algorithms. The SignerInfo type is detailed in Section 9.1.3.9.1.3. SignerInfo
The SignerInfo type identifies the File Writer; the fields of SignerInfo are as follows: version: MUST be 3. sid: identifies the File Writer's public key. This identifier MUST match the value included in the subjectKeyIdentifier certificate extension on the File Writer's X.509 certificate. digestAlgorithm: identifies the one-way hash function and associated parameters used to generate the signature.
signedAttrs: an optional set of attributes that are signed along
with the content.
digestAlgorithm: identifies the digital signature algorithm and
associated parameters used to generate the signature.
signature: the digital signature of the associated file.
unsignedAttrs: an optional set of attributes that are not signed.
9.1.4. EncapsulatedContentInfo
The EncapsulatedContentInfo structure contains a content type
identifier. Since a detached signature is being created, it does not
encapsulate the IPFIX File. The fields of EncapsulatedContentInfo
are as follows:
eContentType: an object identifier that uniquely specifies the
content type. The content type associated with IPFIX File MUST be
id-data (1.2.840.113549.1.7.1).
eContent: an optional field containing the signed content. Since
this is a detached signature, eContent MUST be absent.
9.2. Encryption Error Resilience
Note that single bit errors in the encrypted data stream can result
in larger errors in the decrypted stream, depending on the encryption
scheme used.
In applications (e.g., archival storage) in which error resilience is
very important, File Writers SHOULD use an encryption scheme that can
resynchronize after bit errors. A common example is a block cipher
in CBC (Cipher Block Chaining) mode. In this case, File Writers MAY
also use the Message Checksum Options Template to attach a checksum
to each IPFIX Message in the IPFIX File, in order to support the
recognition of errors in the decrypted data.
10. Compression of IPFIX Files
Network traffic measurement data is generally highly compressible.
IPFIX Templates tend to increase the information content per record
by not requiring the export of irrelevant or non-present fields in
records, and the technique described in [RFC5473] also reduces the
export of redundant information. However, even with these
techniques, generalized compression can decrease storage requirements
significantly; therefore, IPFIX File Writers and File Readers SHOULD
support compression as described in this section.
10.1. Supported Compression Formats
IPFIX Files support two compression encapsulation formats: bzip2 [bzip2] and gzip [RFC1952]. bzip2 provides better compression than gzip and, as a block compression algorithm, better error recovery characteristics, at the expense of slower compression. gzip is potentially a better choice when compression time is an issue. These two algorithms and encapsulation formats were chosen for ubiquity and ease of implementation. IPFIX File Readers and Writers supporting compression MUST support bzip2, and SHOULD support gzip.10.2. Compression Recognition at the File Reader
bzip2, gzip, and uncompressed IPFIX Files have distinct magic numbers. IPFIX File Readers SHOULD use these magic numbers to determine what compression, if any, is in use for an IPFIX File, and invoke the proper decompression. bzip2 files are identified by the initial three-octet string 0x42, 0x5A, 0x68 ("BZh"). gzip files are identified by the initial two-octet string 0x1F, 0x8B. IPFIX Files are identified by the initial two-octet string 0x00, 0x0A; these are the version bytes of the first IPFIX Message header in the File.10.3. Compression Error Resilience
Compression at the file level, like encryption, is not particularly resilient to errors; in the worst case, a single bit error in a stream-compressed file could result in the loss of the entire file. Since block compression algorithms that support the identification and isolation of blocks containing errors limit the impact of errors on the recoverability of compressed data, the use of bzip2 in applications where error resilience is important is RECOMMENDED. Since the block boundary of a block-compressed IPFIX File may fall in the middle of an IPFIX Message, resynchronization of an IPFIX Message stream by a File Reader after a compression error requires some care. The beginning of an IPFIX Message may be identified by its header signature (the Version field of the Message Header, 0x00 0x0A, followed by a 16-bit Message Length), but simply searching for the first occurrence of the Version field is insufficient, since these two bytes may occur in valid IPFIX Template or Data Sets. Therefore, we specify the following algorithm for File Readers to resynchronize an IPFIX Message Stream after skipping a compressed block containing errors:
1. Search after the error for the first occurrence of the octet
string 0x00, 0x0A (the IPFIX Message Header Version field).
2. Treat this field as the beginning of a candidate IPFIX Message.
Read the two bytes following the Version field as a Message
Length, and seek to that offset from the beginning of the
candidate IPFIX Message.
3. If the first two octets after the candidate IPFIX Message are
0x00, 0x0A (i.e., the IPFIX Message Header Version field of the
next message in the stream), or if the end-of-file is reached
precisely at the end of the candidate IPFIX Message, presume that
the candidate IPFIX Message is valid, and begin reading the IPFIX
File from the start of the candidate IPFIX Message.
4. If not, or if the seek reaches end-of-file or another block
containing errors before finding the end of the candidate
message, go back to step 1, starting the search two bytes from
the start of the candidate IPFIX Message.
The algorithm above will improperly identify a non-message as a
message approximately 1 in 2^32 times, assuming random IPFIX data.
It may be expanded to consider multiple candidate IPFIX Messages in
order to increase reliability.
In applications (e.g., archival storage) in which error resilience is
very important, File Writers SHOULD use block compression algorithms,
and MAY attempt to align IPFIX Messages within compression blocks to
ease resynchronization after errors. File Readers SHOULD use the
resynchronization algorithm above to minimize data loss due to
compression errors.
11. Recommended File Integration Strategies
This section describes methods for integrating IPFIX File data with
other file formats.
11.1. Encapsulation of Non-IPFIX Data in IPFIX Files
At times, it may be useful to export or store non-IPFIX data inline
in an IPFIX File or Message stream. To do this cleanly, this data
must be encapsulated into IPFIX Messages so that an IPFIX File Reader
or Collecting Process can handle it without any need to interpret it.
At the same time, this data must not be changed during transmission
or storage. The opaqueOctets Information Element, as defined in
Section 8.2.17, is provided for this encapsulation.
Processing the encapsulated non-IPFIX data is left to a separate processing mechanisms that can identify encapsulated non-IPFIX data in an IPFIX Message Stream, but need not have any other IPFIX handling capability, except the ability to skip over all IPFIX Messages that do not encapsulate non-IPFIX data. The Message Checksum Options Template, described in Section 8.1.1, may be used as a uniform mechanism to identify errors within encapsulated data. Note that this mechanism can only encapsulate data objects up to 65,515 octets in length. If the space available in one IPFIX Message is not enough for the amount of data to be encapsulated, then the data must be broken into smaller segments that are encapsulated into consecutive IPFIX Messages. Any additional structuring or semantics of the raw data is outside the scope of IPFIX and must be implemented within the encapsulated binary data itself. Furthermore, the raw encapsulated data cannot be assumed by an IPFIX File Reader to have any specific format.11.2. Encapsulation of IPFIX Files within Other File Formats
Consequently, it may also be useful to reverse the encapsulation, that is, to export or store IPFIX data inline within a non-IPFIX File or data stream. This makes sense when the other file format is not compatible with the encapsulation described above in Section 11.1. Generally speaking, the encapsulation here will be specific to the format of the containing file. For example, IPFIX Files may be embedded in XML elements using hex or Base64 encoding, or in raw binary files using start and end delimiters or some form of run- length encoding. As there are as many potential encapsulations here as there are potential file formats, the specifics of each are out of scope for this specification.12. Security Considerations
The Security Considerations section of [RFC5101], on which the IPFIX File format is based, is largely concerned with the proper application of TLS and DTLS to ensure confidentiality and integrity when exporting IPFIX Messages. By analogy, this document specifies the use of CMS [RFC3852] detached signatures to provide equivalent integrity protection to TLS and DTLS in Section 9.1. However, aside from merely applying CMS for signatures, there are several security issues which much be considered in certain circumstances; these are covered in the subsections below.
12.1. Relationship between IPFIX File and Transport Encryption
The underlying protocol used to exchange the information that will be stored using the format proposed in this document must as well apply appropriate procedures to guarantee the integrity and confidentiality of the exported information. Such issues are addressed in [RFC5101]. Specifically, IPFIX Files that store data taken from an IPFIX Collecting Process using TLS or DTLS for transport security SHOULD be signed as in Section 9.1 and SHOULD be encrypted out of band; storage of such flow data without encryption may present a potential breach of confidentiality. Conversely, flow data considered sensitive enough to require encryption in storage that is later transmitted using IPFIX SHOULD be transmitted using TLS or DTLS for transport security.12.2. End-to-End Assertions for IPFIX Files
Note that while both TLS and CMS provide the ability to sign an IPFIX Transport Session or an IPFIX File, there exists no method for protecting data integrity end-to-end in the case in which a Collecting Process is collocated with a File Writer. The channel between the Exporting Process to Collecting Process using IPFIX is signed by the Exporting Process key and protected via TLS and DTLS, while the File is signed by the File Writer key and protected via CMS. The identity of the Exporting Process is not asserted in the file, and the records may be modified between the Collecting Process and the File Writer. There are two potential ways to address this issue. The first is by fiat, and is appropriate only when the application allows the Collecting-Process-to-File-Writer channel to be trusted. In this case, the File Writer's signature is an implicit assertion that the channel to the Exporting Process was protected, that the Exporting Process's signature was verified, and that the data was not changed after collection. For this to work, a File Writer collocated with a Collecting Process SHOULD NOT sign a File as specified in Section 9.1 unless the Transport Session over which the data was exported was protected via TLS or DTLS, and the Collecting Process positively identified the Exporting Process by its certificate. The File Writer SHOULD include the Exporting Process and Collecting Process certificates within the File using the Export Session Detail Options Template in Section 8.1.3 or the Message Detail Options Template in Section 8.1.4 to allow for later verification. In situations in which the Collecting Process and/or File Writer cannot be trusted, end-to-end integrity can then be approximated by collocating the File Writer with the Metering Process, and removing the IPFIX protocol completely from the chain. In this case, the File
Writer's signature is an implicit assertion that the Metering Process is identified and is not tampering with the information as observed on the wire. Verification of these trust relationships is out of scope for this document, and should be considered on a per-implementation basis.12.3. Recommendations for Strength of Cryptography for IPFIX Files
Note that when encrypting files for archival storage, the cryptographic strength is dependent on the length of time over which archival data is expected to be kept. Long-term storage may require re-application of cryptographic protection, periodically resigning and reencrypting files with stronger keys. In this case, it is recommended that the existing signed and/or encypted data be encapsulated within newer, stronger protection. See [RFC4810] for a discussion of this issue.13. IANA Considerations
This document specifies the creation of several new IPFIX Information Elements in the IPFIX Information Element registry located at http://www.iana.org, as defined in Section 8.2 above. IANA has assigned the following Information Element numbers for their respective Information Elements as specified below: o Information Element number 258 for the collectionTimeMilliseconds Information Element. o Information Element number 274 for the collectorCertificate Information Element. o Information Element number 275 for the exporterCertificate Information Element. o Information Element number 259 for the exportSctpStreamId Information Element. o Information Element number 260 for the maxExportSeconds Information Element. o Information Element number 268 for the maxFlowEndMicroseconds Information Element. o Information Element number 269 for the maxFlowEndMilliseconds Information Element.
o Information Element number 270 for the maxFlowEndNanoseconds
Information Element.
o Information Element number 261 for the maxFlowEndSeconds
Information Element.
o Information Element number 262 for the messageMD5Checksum
Information Element.
o Information Element number 263 for the messageScope Information
Element.
o Information Element number 264 for the minExportSeconds
Information Element.
o Information Element number 271 for the minFlowStartMicroseconds
Information Element.
o Information Element number 272 for the minFlowStartMilliseconds
Information Element.
o Information Element number 273 for the minFlowStartNanoseconds
Information Element.
o Information Element number 265 for the minFlowStartSeconds
Information Element.
o Information Element number 266 for the opaqueOctets Information
Element.
o Information Element number 267 for the sessionScope Information
Element.
IANA has created the media type application/ipfix for IPFIX data, as
described by the following registration information:
Type name: application
Subtype name: ipfix
Required parameters: none
Optional parameters: none
Encoding considerations: IPFIX Files are binary, and therefore must
be encoded in non-binary contexts.
Security considerations: See the Security Considerations
(Section 12) of RFC 5655, and the Security Considerations of
[RFC5101].
Interoperability considerations: See the "Detailed Specification"
(Section 7) of RFC 5655. The format is designed to be broadly
interoperable, as any valid stream of IPFIX Messages over any
transport specified in [RFC5101] MUST be recognizable as a valid
IPFIX File.
Published specification: RFC 5655, especially Section 7, and
[RFC5101].
Applications that use this media type: Various IPFIX
implementations (see [RFC5153]) support the construction of IPFIX
File Readers and Writers.
Additional information:
Magic number(s): None, although the first two bytes of any IPFIX
File are the first two bytes of a message header, the Version
field, which as of [RFC5101] are always 10 in network byte
order: 0x00, 0x0A.
File extension(s): .ipfix
Macintosh file type code(s): none
Person & email address to contact for further information: Brian
Trammell <brian.trammell@hitachi-eu.com> for the authors of RFC
5655; Nevil Brownlee <n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz> for the IPFIX
Working Group.
Intended usage: LIMITED USE
Restrictions on usage: none
Change controller: Brian Trammell <brian.trammell@hitachi-eu.com>
for the authors of RFC 5655; Nevil Brownlee
<n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz> for the IPFIX Working Group.
14. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Maurizio Molina, Tom Kosnar, and Andreas Kind for technical
assistance with the requirements for a standard flow storage format.
Thanks to Benoit Claise, Paul Aitken, Andrew Johnson, Gerhard Muenz,
and Nevil Brownlee for their reviews and feedback. Thanks to Pasi
Eronen for pointing out [RFC5485], and Russ Housley for writing it;
it specifies a detached signature format, from which Section 9.1 is largely drawn. Thanks to the PRISM project for its support of this work.15. References
15.1. Normative References
[RFC5101] Claise, B., "Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of IP Traffic Flow Information", RFC 5101, January 2008. [RFC5102] Quittek, J., Bryant, S., Claise, B., Aitken, P., and J. Meyer, "Information Model for IP Flow Information Export", RFC 5102, January 2008. [RFC5610] Boschi, E., Trammell, B., Mark, L., and T. Zseby, "Exporting Type Information for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Information Elements", RFC 5610, July 2009. [RFC1321] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC 1321, April 1992. [RFC1952] Deutsch, P., Gailly, J-L., Adler, M., Deutsch, L., and G. Randers-Pehrson, "GZIP file format specification version 4.3", RFC 1952, May 1996. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC3852] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", RFC 3852, July 2004. [RFC4810] Wallace, C., Pordesch, U., and R. Brandner, "Long-Term Archive Service Requirements", RFC 4810, March 2007. [RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S., Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, May 2008. [bzip2] Seward, J., "bzip2 (http://www.bzip.org/)", March 2008.
15.2. Informative References
[RFC3917] Quittek, J., Zseby, T., Claise, B., and S. Zander, "Requirements for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 3917, October 2004. [RFC3954] Claise, B., "Cisco Systems NetFlow Services Export Version 9", RFC 3954, October 2004. [RFC5153] Boschi, E., Mark, L., Quittek, J., Stiemerling, M., and P. Aitken, "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Implementation Guidelines", RFC 5153, April 2008. [RFC5470] Sadasivan, G., Brownlee, N., Claise, B., and J. Quittek, "Architecture for IP Flow Information Export", RFC 5470, March 2009. [RFC5471] Schmoll, C., Aitken, P., and B. Claise, "Guidelines for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Testing", RFC 5471, March 2009. [RFC5472] Zseby, T., Boschi, E., Brownlee, N., and B. Claise, "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Applicability", RFC 5472, March 2009. [RFC5473] Boschi, E., Mark, L., and B. Claise, "Reducing Redundancy in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) and Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Reports", RFC 5473, March 2009. [SAINT2007] Trammell, B., Boschi, E., Mark, L., and T. Zseby, "Requirements for a standardized flow storage solution", in Proceedings of the SAINT 2007 workshop on Internet Measurement Technology, Hiroshima, Japan, January 2007. [RFC3851] Ramsdell, B., "Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.1 Message Specification", RFC 3851, July 2004. [RFC4288] Freed, N. and J. Klensin, "Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 4288, December 2005. [RFC5485] Housley, R., "Digital Signatures on Internet-Draft Documents", RFC 5485, March 2009. [pcap] "libpcap (http://www.tcpdump.org/)", October 2008.
Appendix A. Example IPFIX File
In this section we will explore an example IPFIX File that demonstrates the various features of the IPFIX File format. This File contains flow records described by a single Template. This File also contains a File Time Window record to note the start and end time of the data, and an Export Session Details record to record collection infrastructure information. Each Message within this File also contains a Message Checksum record, as this File may be externally encrypted and/or stored as an archive. The structure of this File is shown in Figure 2. +=================================================+ | IPFIX Message seq. 0 | | +---------------------------------------------+ | | | Template Set (ID 2) 1 rec | | | | Data Tmpl. ID 256 | | | +---------------------------------------------+ | | | Options Template Set (ID 3) 3 recs | | | | File Time Window Opt. Tmpl. ID 257 | | | | Message Checksum Opt. Tmpl. ID 259 | | | | Export Session Details Opt. Tmpl. ID 258 | | | +---------------------------------------------+ | | | Data Set (ID 259) [Message Checksum] 1 rec | | | +---------------------------------------------+ | +=================================================+ | IPFIX Message seq. 1 | | +---------------------------------------------+ | | | Data Set (ID 257) [File Time Window] 1 rec | | | +---------------------------------------------+ | | | Data Set (ID 258) [Export Session] 1 rec | | | +---------------------------------------------+ | | | Data Set (ID 259) [Message Checksum] 1 rec | | | +---------------------------------------------+ | +=================================================+ | IPFIX Message seq. 4 | | +---------------------------------------------+ | | | Data Set (ID 256) 50 recs | | | | contains flow data | | | +---------------------------------------------+ | | | Data Set (ID 259) [Message Checksum] 1 rec | | | +---------------------------------------------+ | +=================================================+ | IPFIX Message seq. 55 | | . . . | Figure 2: File Example Structure
The Template describing the data records contains a flow start timestamp, an IPv4 5-tuple, and packet and octet total counts. The Template Set defining this is as shown in Figure 3 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 = 40 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Template ID = 256 | Field Count = 8 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0| flowStartSeconds = 150 | Field Length = 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0| sourceIPv4Address = 8 | Field Length = 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0| dest.IPv4Address = 12 | Field Length = 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0| sourceTransportPort = 7 | Field Length = 2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0| dest.TransportPort = 11 | Field Length = 2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0| protocolIdentifier = 4 | Field Length = 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0| octetTotalCount = 85 | Field Length = 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0| packetTotalCount = 86 | Field Length = 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 3: File Example Data TemplateA.1. Example Options Templates
This is followed by an Options Template Set containing the Options Templates required to read the File: the File Time Window Options Template (defined in Section 8.1.2 above), the Export Session Details Options Template (defined in Section 8.1.3 above), and the Message Checksum Options Template (defined in Section 8.1.1 above). This Options Template Set is shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5 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 = 80 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Template ID = 257 | Field Count = 3 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Scope Field Count = 1 |0| sessionScope = 267 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Field Length = 1 |0| minFlowStartSeconds = 265 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Field Length = 4 |0| maxFlowEndSeconds = 261 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Field Length = 4 | Template ID = 259 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Field Count = 2 | Scope Field Count = 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0| messageScope = 263 | Field Length = 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0| messageMD5Checksum = 262 | Field Length = 16 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 4: File Example Options Templates (Time Window and Checksum)
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Template ID = 258 | Field Count = 9 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Scope Field Count = 1 |0| sessionScope = 267 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Field Length = 1 |0| exporterIPv4Address = 130 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Field Length = 4 |0| collectorIPv4Address = 211 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Field Length = 4 |0| exporterTransportPort = 217 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Field Length = 2 |0| col.TransportPort = 216 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Field Length = 2 |0| col.TransportProtocol = 215 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Field Length = 1 |0| col.ProtocolVersion = 214 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Field Length = 1 |0| minExportSeconds = 264 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Field Length = 4 |0| maxExportSeconds = 260 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Field Length = 4 | set padding (2 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 5: File Example Options Templates, Continued (Session Details)A.2. Example Supplemental Options Data
Following the Templates required to decode the File is the supplemental IPFIX Options information used to describe the File's contents and type information. First comes the File Time Window record; it notes that the File contains data from 9 October 2007 between 00:01:13 and 23:56:27 UTC, and appears as in Figure 6:
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 = 257 | Length = 13 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sessionScope | minFlowStartSeconds | 0 | 2007-10-09 00:01:13 UTC . . . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | maxFlowEndSeconds . . . | 2007-10-09 23:56:27 UTC . . . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | . . . | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 6: File Example Time Window This is followed by information about how the data in the File was collected, in the Export Session Details record. This record notes that the session stored in this File was sent via SCTP from an Exporter at 192.0.2.30 port 32769 to a Collector at 192.0.2.40 port 4739, and contains messages exported between 00:01:57 and 23:57:12 UTC on 9 October 2007; it is represented in its Data Set as in Figure 7:
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 = 258 | Length = 27 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sessionScope | exporterIPv4Address | 0 | 192.0.2.30 . . . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | collectorIPv4Address . . . | 192.0.2.31 . . . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | exporterTransportPort | cTPort . . . | 32769 | 4739 . . . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | cTProtocol | cPVersion | . . . | 132 | 10 | . . . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ minExportSeconds | . . . 2007-10-09 00:01:57 UTC | . . . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ maxExportSeconds | . . . 2007-10-09 23:57:12 UTC | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 7: File Example Export Session DetailsA.3. Example Message Checksum
Each IPFIX Message within the File is completed with a Message Checksum record; the structure of this record within its Data Set is as in Figure 8: 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 = 259 | Length = 24 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | messageScope | | | 0 | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | messageMD5Checksum | | (16-byte MD5 checksum of options message) | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | set padding (3 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 8: File Example Message Checksum
A.4. File Example Data Set
After the Templates and supplemental Options information comes the data itself. The first record of an example Data Set is shown with its message and set headers in Figure 9: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Version = 10 | Length = 1296 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Export Time = 2007-10-09 00:01:57 UTC | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sequence Number = 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Observation Domain ID = 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Set ID = 256 | Length = 1254 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | flowStartSeconds | | 2007-10-09 00:01:13 UTC | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sourceIPv4Address | | 192.0.2.2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | destinationIPv4Address | | 192.0.2.3 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sourceTransportPort | destinationTransportPort | | 32770 | 80 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | protocolId | totalOctetCount | 6 | 18000 . . . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | totalPacketCount . . . | 65 . . . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | (49 more records) . . . | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 9: File Example Data SetA.5. Complete File Example
Bringing together the examples above and adding message headers as appropriate, a hex dump of the first 317 bytes of the example File constructed above would appear as in the annotated Figure 10 below.
0:|00 0A 00 A0 47 0A B6 E5 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 [^ first message header (length 160 bytes) --> 16:|00 02 00 28 01 00 00 08 00 96 00 04 00 08 00 04 [^ data template set --> 32: 00 0C 00 04 00 07 00 02 00 0B 00 02 00 04 00 01 48: 00 55 00 04 00 56 00 04|00 03 00 50 01 01 00 03 [^ opt template set --> 64: 00 01 01 0B 00 01 01 09 00 04 01 05 00 04 01 03 80: 00 02 00 01 01 07 00 01 01 06 00 10 01 02 00 09 96: 00 01 01 0B 00 01 00 82 00 04 00 D3 00 04 00 D9 112: 00 02 00 D8 00 02 00 D7 00 01 00 D0 00 01 01 08 128: 00 04 01 04 00 04 00 00|01 03 00 18 00 73 F1 12 [^ checksum record --> 144: D6 C7 58 BE 44 E6 60 06 4E 78 74 AE 7D 00 00 00 176:|00 0A 00 50 47 0A B6 E5 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 01 [^ second message header (length 80 bytes) --> 192:|01 01 00 0E 00 47 0A B6 B9 47 0C 07 1B 00|01 02 [^ time window rec -> [ session detail rec ^ --> 208: 00 1C 00 C0 00 02 1E 0C 00 02 1F 80 01 12 83 84 224: 0A 47 0A B6 E5 47 0C 07 48 00|01 03 00 18 00 3E [ message checksum record ^ --> 240: 2B 37 08 CE B2 0E 30 11 32 12 4A 5F E3 AD DB 00 256:|00 0A 05 10 47 0A B6 E5 00 00 00 06 00 00 00 01 [^ third message header (length 1296 bytes) --> 272:|01 00 04 E6|47 0A B6 B9 C0 00 02 02 C0 00 02 03 [^ set hdr ][^ first data rec --> 288: 80 02 00 50 06 00 00 46 50 00 00 00 41 Figure 10: File Example Hex Dump
Appendix B. Applicability of IPFIX Files to NetFlow V9 Flow Storage
As the IPFIX Message format is nearly a superset of the NetFlow V9 packet format, IPFIX Files can be used for store NetFlow V9 data relatively easily. This section describes a method for doing so. The differences between the two protocols are outlined in Appendix B.1 below. A simple, lightweight, message-for-message translation method for transforming V9 Packets into IPFIX Messages for storage within IPFIX Files is described in Appendix B.2. An example of this translation method is given in Appendix B.3.B.1. Comparing NetFlow V9 to IPFIX
With a few caveats, the IPFIX protocol is a superset of the NetFlow V9 protocol, having evolved from it largely through a process of feature addition to bring it into compliance with the IPFIX Requirements and the needs of stakeholders within the IPFIX Working Group. This appendix outlines the differences between the two protocols. It is informative only, and presented as an exploration of the two protocols to motivate the usage of IPFIX Files to store V9-collected flow data.B.1.1. Message Header Format
Both NetFlow V9 and IPFIX use streams of messages prefixed by a message header, though the message header differs significantly between the two. Note that in NetFlow V9 terminology, these messages are called packets, and messages must be delimited by datagram boundaries. IPFIX does not have this constraint. The header formats are detailed below: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Version Number | Count | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sysUpTime | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | UNIX Secs | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sequence Number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Source ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 11: NetFlow V9 Packet Header Format
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Version Number | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Export Time | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sequence Number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Observation Domain ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 12: IPFIX Message Header Format Version Number: The IPFIX Version Number MUST be 10, while the NetFlow V9 Version Number MUST be 9. Length vs. Count: The Count field in the NetFlow V9 packet header counts records in the message (including Data and Template Records), while the Length field in the IPFIX Message Header counts octets in the message. Note that this implies that NetFlow V9 collectors must rely on datagram boundaries or some other external delimiter; otherwise, they must completely consume a message before finding its end. System Uptime: System uptime in milliseconds is exported in the NetFlow V9 packet header. This field is not present in the IPFIX Message Header, and must be exported using an IPFIX Option if required. Export Time: Aside from being called UNIX Secs in the NetFlow V9 packet header specification, the export time in seconds since 1 January 1970 at 0000 UTC appears in both NetFlow V9 and IPFIX message headers. Sequence Number: The NetFlow V9 Sequence Number counts packets, while the IPFIX Sequence Number counts records in Data Sets. Both are scoped to Observation Domain. Observation Domain ID: Similarly, the NetFlow V9 sourceID has become the IPFIX Observation Domain ID.B.1.2. Set Header Format
Set headers are identical between NetFlow V9 and IPFIX; that is, each Set (FlowSet in NetFlow V9 terminology) is prefixed by a 4-byte set header containing the Set ID and the length of the set in octets.
Note that the special Set IDs are different between IPFIX and NetFlow V9. IPFIX Template Sets are identified by Set ID 2, while NetFlow V9 Template FlowSets are identified by Set ID 0. Similarly, IPFIX Options Template Sets are identified by Set ID 3, while NetFlow V9 Options Template FlowSets are identified by Set ID 1. Both protocols reserve Set IDs 0-255, and use Set IDs 256-65535 for Data Sets (or FlowSets, in NetFlow V9 terminology).B.1.3. Template Format
Template FlowSets in NetFlow V9 support a subset of functionality of those in IPFIX. Specifically, NetFlow V9 does not have any support for vendor-specific Information Elements as IPFIX does, so there is no enterprise bit or facility for associating a private enterprise number with an information element. NetFlow V9 also does not support variable-length fields. Options Template FlowSets in NetFlow V9 are similar to Options Template Sets in IPFIX subject to the same caveats.B.1.4. Information Model
The NetFlow V9 field type definitions are a compatible subset of, and have evolved in concert with, the IPFIX Information Model. IPFIX Information Element identifiers in the range 1-127 are defined by the IPFIX Information Model [RFC5102] to be compatible with the corresponding NetFlow V9 field types.B.1.5. Template Management
NetFlow V9 has no concept of a Transport Session as in IPFIX, as NetFlow V9 was designed with a connectionless transport in mind. Template IDs are therefore scoped to an Exporting Process lifetime (i.e., an Exporting Process instance between restarts). There is no facility in NetFlow V9 as in IPFIX for Template withdrawal or Template ID reuse. Template retransmission at the Exporter works as in UDP-based IPFIX Exporting Processes.B.1.6. Transport
In practice, though NetFlow V9 is designed to be transport- independent, it is transported only over UDP. There is no facility as in IPFIX for full connection-oriented transport without datagram boundaries, due to the use of a record count field as opposed to a message length field in the packet header. There is no support in NetFlow V9 for transport layer security via TLS or DTLS.
B.2. A Method for Transforming NetFlow V9 Messages to IPFIX
This appendix describes a method for transforming NetFlow V9 Packets into IPFIX Messages, which can be used to store NetFlow V9 data in IPFIX Files. A process transforming NetFlow V9 Packets into IPFIX Messages must handle the fact that NetFlow V9 Packets and IPFIX Messages are framed differently, that sequence numbering works differently, and that the NetFlow V9 field type definitions are only compatible with the IPFIX Information Model below Information Element identifier 128. For each incoming NetFlow V9 packet, the transformation process must: 1. Verify that the Version field of the packet header is 9. 2. Verify that the Sequence Number field of the packet header is valid. 3. Scan the packet to: 1. Verify that it contains no Templates with field types outside the range 1-127; 2. Verify that it contains no FlowSets with Set IDs between 2 and 255 inclusive; 3. Verify that it contains the number of records in FlowSets, Template FlowSets, and Options Template FlowSets declared in the Count field of the packet header; and 4. Count the number of records in Data FlowSets for calculating the IPFIX Sequence Number. 4. Calculate a Sequence Number for each IPFIX Observation Domain by storing the last Sequence Number sent for each Observation Domain plus the count of records in Data FlowSets in the previous step to be sent as the Sequence Number for the IPFIX Message following this one within that Observation Domain. 5. Generate a new IPFIX Message Header with: 1. a Version field of 10; 2. a Length field with the number of octets in the IPFIX Message, generally available by subtracting 4 from the length of the NetFlow V9 packet as returned from the transport layer (accounting for the difference in message header lengths);
3. the Sequence Number calculated for this message by the
Sequence Number calculation step; and
4. Export Time and Observation Domain ID taken from the UNIX
secs and Source ID fields of the NetFlow V9 packet header,
respectively.
6. Copy each FlowSet from the Netflow V9 packet to the IPFIX Message
after the header. Replace Set ID 0 with Set ID 2 for Template
Sets, and Set ID 1 with Set ID 3 for Options Template Sets.
Note that this process loses system uptime information; if such
information is required, the transformation process will have to
export that information using IPFIX Options. This may require a more
sophisticated transformation process structure.
B.3. NetFlow V9 Transformation Example
The following two figures show a single NetFlow V9 packet with
templates and the corresponding IPFIX Message, exporting a single
flow record representing 60,303 octets sent from 192.0.2.2 to
192.0.2.3. This would be the third packet exported in Observation
Domain 33 from the NetFlow V9 exporter, containing records starting
with the 12th record (packet and record sequence numbers count from
0).
The ** symbol in the IPFIX example shows those fields that required
modification from the NetFlow V9 packet by the transformation
process.
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Version = 9 | Count = 2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Uptime = 3750405 ms (1:02:30.405) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Export Time = 1171557627 epoch sec (2007-02-15 16:40:27) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sequence Number = 2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Observation Domain ID = 33 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Set ID = 0 | Set Length = 20 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Template ID = 256 | Field Count = 3 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IPV4_SRC_ADDR = 8 | Field Length = 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IPV4_DST_ADDR = 12 | Field Length = 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IN_BYTES = 1 | Field Length = 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Set ID = 256 | Set Length = 16 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IPV4_SRC_ADDR | | 192.0.2.2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IPV4_DST_ADDR | | 192.0.2.3 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IN_BYTES | | 60303 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 13: Example NetFlow V9 Packet
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ** Version = 10 | ** Length = 52 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Export Time = 1171557627 epoch sec (2007-02-15 16:40:27) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ** Sequence Number = 11 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Observation Domain ID = 33 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ** Set ID = 2 | Set Length = 20 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Template ID = 256 | Field Count = 3 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0| sourceIPv4Address = 8 | Field Length = 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0| destinationIPv4Address = 12 | Field Length = 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0| octetDeltaCount = 1 | Field Length = 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Set ID = 256 | Set Length = 16 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sourceIPv4Address | | 192.0.2.2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | destinationIPv4Address | | 192.0.2.3 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | octetDeltaCount | | 60303 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 14: Corresponding Example IPFIX Message
Authors' Addresses
Brian Trammell Hitachi Europe c/o ETH Zurich Gloriastrasse 35 8092 Zurich Switzerland Phone: +41 44 632 70 13 EMail: brian.trammell@hitachi-eu.com Elisa Boschi Hitachi Europe c/o ETH Zurich Gloriastrasse 35 8092 Zurich Switzerland Phone: +41 44 632 70 57 EMail: elisa.boschi@hitachi-eu.com Lutz Mark Fraunhofer IFAM Wiener Str. 12 28359 Bremen Germany Phone: +49 421 2246206 EMail: lutz.mark@ifam.fraunhofer.de Tanja Zseby Fraunhofer Institute for Open Communication Systems Kaiserin-Augusta-Allee 31 10589 Berlin Germany Phone: +49 30 3463 7153 EMail: tanja.zseby@fokus.fraunhofer.de Arno Wagner ETH Zurich Gloriastrasse 35 8092 Zurich Switzerland Phone: +41 44 632 70 04 EMail: arno@wagner.name