Hi Jake,

Good length is fixed. About the inconsistencies i'm very willing to
support you with those. If you want to have a closer look at those
see nf9_init_template() in src/nfprobe_plugin/netflow9.c (which
handles both NetFlow v9 and IPFIX). Alternatively, feel free to send
over privately your current configs and a capture in pcap format of
the IPFIX emitted by nfprobe plugin.

Couple of comments on this round of things you pointed out:

* input and output interfaces have been fixed, code is in the CVS;
  in general you can expect more of this occurrences to be there as
  there is a single root cause: field lenghts were ported to IPFIX
  from NetFlow v9. 

* IP version and IPv4 source address being inconsistent: i can't
  verify/reproduce this in lab. If i run the IPFIX export through
  tshark i get the following (which looks OK to me):

  [ .. ]
    Set 3
        FlowSet Id: (Data) (1024)
        FlowSet Length: 132
        Flow 1
            [Duration: 1.626000000 seconds]
                StartTime: 0.137000000 seconds
                EndTime: 1.763000000 seconds
            Octets: 4280
            Packets: 7
            IPVersion: 04
            InputInt: 0
            OutputInt: 100
            Direction: Ingress (0)
            SrcAddr: XX.XX.158.133 (XX.XX.158.133)
            DstAddr: XX.XXX.159.164 (XX.XXX.159.164)
            BGPNextHop: 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0)
            SrcMask: 24
            DstMask: 24
            SrcPort: 22
            DstPort: 41589
            IP ToS: 0x00
            TCP Flags: 0x18
            Protocol: 6
            SrcAS: 0
            DstAS: 0
  [ .. ]

  I'd need a way to reproduce your issue.  

Cheers,
Paolo

On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 06:07:37PM +0200, jake wrote:
> Hi Paolo,
> 
> thanks a lot!
> I get the correct length of octetDeltaCount now.
> 
> After taking a closer look at the template advertisements I think
> there're still a few inconsistences (either in my collector or your
> exporter :)
> 
> Here's an example with edited IP address:
> 
>    Data Record (first 32B)
>    [0 50 182 16 0 50 96 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 229 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 4 0
>    0 0 0 0 192 168]
> 
>    Template Field Specifiers
>    id: 21  length: 4
>    id: 1   length: 8
>    id: 60  length: 1       <-- ipVersion is 0 in Data Record
>    id: 14  length: 2        <-- egressInterface should be 4B
>    id: 8   length: 4       <-- sourceIPv4Address
>    id: 7   length: 2
>    id: 5   length: 1
>    id: 4   length: 1
>    id: 1025  length: 15
>    id: 22  length: 4
>    id: 2   length: 8
>    id: 10  length: 2        <-- ingressInterface should be 4B
>    id: 61  length: 1
>    id: 12  length: 4
>    id: 11  length: 2
> 
> What looks strange to me:
> 1) egressInterface and ingressInterface are 2B (should be 4B)
> 2) ipVersion is 0 in Data Record
> 2) sourceIPv4Address doesn't match the advertized offset
> 
> Can you point me to the LOC where the template is built?
> I couldn't find it by glancing over the source.
> 
> Best,
> Jake
> 
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 07:08:34AM +0000, Paolo Lucente wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >Thanks for reporting this. Issue should be fixed now in the
> >code in the CVS (tests good to me). Can you verify it seems
> >to work allright to you too?
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Paolo
> >
> >On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 12:00:33PM +0200, [email protected] wrote:
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>I'm using pmacct as an IPFIX-exporter.
> >>It seems in the Template the octetDeltaCount is advertized as 32 bits
> >>whereas the actual length in the Data Set is 64 bits.
> >>According to RFC [1] the octetDeltaCount is 64 bits long.
> >>
> >>Can anyone confirm the error (or even fix it)?
> >>
> >>Best,
> >>Jake
> >>
> >>[1] RFC5102, 5.10.1
> >>~
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>pmacct-discussion mailing list
> >>http://www.pmacct.net/#mailinglists
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >pmacct-discussion mailing list
> >http://www.pmacct.net/#mailinglists
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pmacct-discussion mailing list
> http://www.pmacct.net/#mailinglists

_______________________________________________
pmacct-discussion mailing list
http://www.pmacct.net/#mailinglists

Reply via email to