IPFIX Working Group B. Claise Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. Intended Status: Standards Track A. Kobayashi Expires: April 19, 2010 NTT PF Lab. B. Trammell Hitachi Europe October 19, 2009 Specification of the Protocol for IPFIX Mediations draft-claise-ipfix-mediation-protocol-00 Abstract This document specifies the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) protocol specific to the Mediation. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html This Internet-Draft will expire on April, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with Expires April 19 2009 [Page 1] Internet-Draft October 2009 respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. Conventions used in this document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. Table of Contents 1. Introduction................................................3 2. Terminology.................................................3 2.1. IPFIX Documents Overview...............................7 2.2. Relationship with IPFIX and PSAMP......................7 3. Specifications..............................................8 3.1. Encoding of IPFIX Message Header ......................8 3.2. Template Management....................................9 3.2.1. Template Management Without Template Record Change9 3.2.2. Template Management With Template Record Change..10 3.3. Time Management.......................................10 3.4. Observation Point Management..........................11 3.4.1. Observation Domain Management....................11 3.5. Specific Reporting Requirements.......................12 3.5.1. The Flow Keys Options Template...................13 3.5.2. IPFIX Protocol Options Template..................13 3.5.3. IPFIX Mediator Options Template..................13 3.6. Transport Session Management..........................14 3.7. The Collecting Process's Side.........................14 3.8. Sampling Management...................................14 3.9. Filtering Management..................................14 4. New Intermediate Function..................................15 5. Security Considerations ...................................15 6. IANA Considerations........................................15 7. References.................................................15 7.1. Normative References..................................15 7.2. Informative References................................15 8. Author's Addresses.........................................16 TO DO Expires April 19, 2010 [Page 2] Internet-Draft October 2009 - This draft is basically a starting point: multiple open issues must be discussed throughout the draft - What should we export in terms of Original Exporter? A specific Options Template? - Should we export the aggregation function for an IPFIX Concentrator? - Do we want to have an aggregate observation point? - Review the problem statement, section 6 "IPFIX Mediators Implementation Specific Problems" to see if we covered all problems - See the EDITOR'S NOTE within the document 1. Introduction The IPFIX architectural components in [RFC5470] consist of IPFIX Devices and IPFIX Collectors communicating using the IPFIX protocol [RFC5101], which specifies how to export IP Flow information. This protocol is designed to export information about IP traffic Flows and related measurement data, where a Flow is defined by a set of key attributes (e.g. source and destination IP address, source and destination port, etc.). The specifications in the IPFIX protocol [RFC5101] have not been defined in the context of an IPFIX Mediator receiving/aggregating/correlating/anonymizing/etc... Flow Records from the one or multiple Exporters. Indeed, the IPFIX protocol must be adapted for Intermediate Processes, as defined in the IPFIX Mediation Reference Model (Figure A of [IPFIX-MED-FMWK]. 2. Terminology The IPFIX-specific and PSAMP-specific terminology used in this document is defined in [RFC5101] and [RFC5476], respectively. The IPFIX Mediation-specific terminology used in this document is defined in [IPFIX-MED-PS]. However, as reading the problem statements document is not a prerequisite to reading this framework document, the definitions have been reproduced here along with additional definitions. In this document, as in [RFC5101] and [RFC5476], the first letter of each IPFIX-specific and PSAMP-specific term is capitalized along with the IPFIX Mediation-specific term defined here. In this document, we use the generic term "record stream" to denote a set of flow- or packet-based data records and their Expires April 19, 2010 [Page 3] Internet-Draft October 2009 additional information that flows from data sources, whether encoded in IPFIX protocol or non-IPFIX protocols. Regarding IPFIX and PSAMP, we use the generic term "Data Records" for IPFIX Flow Records, PSAMP Packet Reports, and Data Records defined by Options Templates, unless an explicit distinction is required. Transport Session Information The Transport Session is specified in [RFC5101]. In SCTP, the Transport Session Information is the SCTP association. In TCP and UDP, the Transport Session Information corresponds to a 5- tuple {Exporter IP address, Collector IP address, Exporter transport port, Collector transport port, transport protocol}. Original Exporter An Original Exporter is an IPFIX Device that hosts the Observation Points where the metered IP packets are observed. IPFIX Mediation IPFIX Mediation is the manipulation and conversion of a record stream for subsequent export using the IPFIX protocol. The following terms are used in this document to describe the architectural entities used by IPFIX Mediation. Intermediate Process An Intermediate Process takes a record stream as its input from Collecting Processes, Metering Processes, IPFIX File Readers, other Intermediate Processes, or other record sources; performs some transformations on this stream, based upon the content of each record, states maintained across multiple records, or other data sources; and passes the transformed record stream as its output to Exporting Processes, IPFIX File Writers, or other Intermediate Processes, in order to perform IPFIX Mediation. Typically, an Intermediate Process is hosted by an IPFIX Mediator. Alternatively, an Intermediate Process may be hosted by an Original Exporter. Specific Intermediate Processes are described below. However, this is not an exhaustive list. Intermediate Conversion Process Expires April 19, 2010 [Page 4] Internet-Draft October 2009 An Intermediate Conversion Process is an Intermediate Process that transforms non IPFIX into IPFIX, or manages the relation among Templates and states of incoming/outgoing transport sessions in the case of transport protocol conversion (e.g., from UDP to SCTP). Intermediate Aggregation Process An Intermediate Aggregation Process is an Intermediate Process that aggregates records based upon a set of Flow Keys or functions applied to fields from the record (e.g., binning and subnet aggregation). Intermediate Correlation Process An Intermediate Correlation Process is an Intermediate Process that adds information to records, noting correlations among them, or generates new records with correlated data from multiple records (e.g., the production of bidirectional flow records from unidirectional flow records). Intermediate Selection Process An Intermediate Selection Process is an Intermediate Process that selects records from a sequence based upon criteria- evaluated record values and passes only those records that match the criteria (e.g., filtering only records from a given network to a given Collector). Intermediate Anonymization Process An Intermediate Anonymization Process is an Intermediate Process that transforms records in order to anonymize them, to protect the identity of the entities described by the records (e.g., by applying prefix-preserving pseudonymization of IP addresses). IPFIX Mediator An IPFIX Mediator is an IPFIX Device that provides IPFIX Mediation by receiving a record stream from some data sources, hosting one or more Intermediate Processes to transform that stream, and exporting the transformed record stream into IPFIX Messages via an Exporting Process. In the common case, an IPFIX Mediator receives a record stream from a Collecting Process, but it could also receive a record stream from data sources not encoded using IPFIX, e.g., in the case of Expires April 19, 2010 [Page 5] Internet-Draft October 2009 conversion from the NetFlow V9 protocol [RFC3954] to IPFIX protocol. Specific types of IPFIX Mediators are defined below. IPFIX Proxy An IPFIX Proxy is an IPFIX Mediator that converts a record stream for the purpose of protocol conversion. IPFIX Concentrator An IPFIX Concentrator is an IPFIX Mediator that receives a record stream from one or more Exporters and performs correlation, aggregation, and/or modification. IPFIX Distributor An IPFIX Distributor is an IPFIX Mediator that receives a record stream from one or more Exporters and exports each record to one or more Collectors, deciding to which Collector(s) to export each record depending on the decision of an Intermediate Process. IPFIX Masquerading Proxy An IPFIX Masquerading Proxy is an IPFIX Mediator that receives a record stream from one or more Exporters to screen out parts of records according to configured policies in order to protect the privacy of the network's end users or to retain sensitive data of the exporting organization. The following is a summary table for specific IPFIX Mediator types. The abbreviation "IP" stands for Intermediate Process. Table A: IPFIX Mediator Type Summary Table. +-------------------+------------+-----------------------------+ IPFIX Mediator Number of Intermediate Process Type Type hosted IPs +===================+============+=============================+ IPFIX Proxy one or more Intermediate Conversion Process +-------------------+------------+-----------------------------+ IPFIX Distributor one or more Intermediate Selection Process +-------------------+------------+-----------------------------+ IPFIX Concentrator one or more Intermediate Aggregation Process Expires April 19, 2010 [Page 6] Internet-Draft October 2009 Intermediate Correlation Process +-------------------+------------+-----------------------------+ IPFIX Masquerading one or more Intermediate Anonymization Proxy Process +-------------------+------------+-----------------------------+ 2.1. IPFIX Documents Overview The IPFIX Protocol [RFC5101] provides network administrators with access to IP Flow information. The architecture for the export of measured IP Flow information out of an IPFIX Exporting Process to a Collecting Process is defined in the IPFIX Architecture [RFC5470], per the requirements defined in RFC 3917 [RFC3917]. The IPFIX Architecture [RFC5470] specifies how IPFIX Data Records and Templates are carried via a congestion-aware transport protocol from IPFIX Exporting Processes to IPFIX Collecting Processes. IPFIX has a formal description of IPFIX Information Elements, their name, type and additional semantic information, as specified in the IPFIX Information Model [RFC5102]. The IPFIX Applicability Statement [RFC5472] describes what type of applications can use the IPFIX protocol and how they can use the information provided. It furthermore shows how the IPFIX framework relates to other architectures and frameworks. "IPFIX Mediation: Problem Statement" [IPFIX-MED-PS], describing the IPFIX Mediation applicability examples, along with some problems that network administrators have been facing, is the basis for the "IPFIX Mediation: Framework" [IPFIX-MED-FMWK]. This framework details the IPFIX Mediation reference model and the components of an IPFIX Mediator. 2.2. Relationship with IPFIX and PSAMP The specification in this document applies to the IPFIX protocol specifications [RFC5101]. All specifications from [RFC5101] apply unless specified otherwise in this document. Expires April 19, 2010 [Page 7] Internet-Draft October 2009 As the Packet Sampling (PSAMP) protocol specifications [RFC5476] are based on the IPFIX protocol specifications, the specifications in this document are also valid for the PSAMP protocol. Therefore, the method specified by this document also applies to PSAMP. 3. Specifications This section describes the IPFIX specifications for Mediation. These new specifications, which are more specific compared to [RFC5101], are described with the key words described in [RFC2119]. 3.1. Encoding of IPFIX Message Header The format of the IPFIX Message Header is shown in Figure A. 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 A: IPFIX Message Header format Message Header Field Descriptions Version Version of Flow Record format exported in this message. The value of this field is 0x000a for the current version, incrementing by one the version used in the NetFlow services export version 9 [RFC3954]. Length Total length of the IPFIX Message, measured in octets, including Message Header and Set(s). Expires April 19, 2010 [Page 8] Internet-Draft October 2009 Export Time Time in seconds since 0000 UTC Jan 1st 1970, at which the IPFIX Message Header leaves the IPFIX Mediator. Sequence Number Incremental sequence counter modulo 2^32 of all IPFIX Data Records sent on this PR-SCTP stream from the current Observation Domain by the Exporting Process. Check the specific meaning of this field in the sub- sections of section 10 when UDP or TCP is selected as the transport protocol. This value SHOULD be used by the Collecting Process to identify whether any IPFIX Data Records have been missed. Template and Options Template Records do not increase the Sequence Number. Observation Domain ID A 32-bit identifier of the Observation Domain that is locally unique to the Exporting Process. The Exporting Process uses the Observation Domain ID to uniquely identify to the Collecting Process the Observation Domain that metered the Flows. It is RECOMMENDED that this identifier is also unique per IPFIX Device. Collecting Processes SHOULD use the Transport Session and the Observation Domain ID field to separate different export streams originating from the same Exporting Process. The Observation Domain ID SHOULD be 0 when no specific Observation Domain ID is relevant for the entire IPFIX Message. For example, when exporting the Exporting Process Statistics, or in case of hierarchy of Collector when aggregated data records are exported. EDITOR'S NOTE: make the link with section 3.4.1. 3.2. Template Management 3.2.1. Template Management Without Template Record Change The first case is a situation where the IPFIX Mediator, typically an IPFIX Distributor, relays an (Options) Template without changing its content. As in [RFC5101], the Template IDs are unique per Exporter, per Transport Session, and per Observation Domain. As there is no Expires April 19, 2010 [Page 9] Internet-Draft October 2009 guarantee that, for similar Template Records, the Template IDs received on the incoming Transport Session and exported to the outgoing Transport Session would be same, the IPFIX Mediator MUST maintain a mapping database between received and exported (Options) Template Records: - for each Received (Options) Template Record: Template Record Flow Keys and non Flow Keys, Template ID, Original Exporter, Observation Domain, and Transport Session - for each Exported (Options) Template Record: Template Record Flow Keys and non Flow Keys, Template ID, Collector, Observation Domain, and Transport Session If an IPFIX Mediator receives an IPFIX Withdrawal Message for a (Options) Template Record that is not used anymore in any outgoing Transport Sessions, the IPFIX Mediator SHOULD send the appropriate IPFIX Withdrawal Message(s) on the outgoing Transport Session, and remove the corresponding entry in its mapping database. If an incoming Transport Session is gracefully shutdown or reset, the (Options) Template Records corresponding to that Transport Session MUST be removed from the mapping database. If a (Options) Template Record is not used anymore in outgoing Transport Session, it MUST be withdrawn with an IPFIX Withdrawal Message on that specific outgoing Transport Session. 3.2.2. Template Management With Template Record Change The second case is a situation where the IPFIX Mediator, typically an IPFIX Concentrator or an IPFIX Masquerading Proxy, generates new (Options) Template compared to what it receives from the Original Exporters. EDITOR'S NOTE: to be completed. This is slightly more complex as we have to introduce the notion of derived (Options) Template Records. 3.3. Time Management The IPFIX Message Header "Export Time" field is the time in seconds since 0000 UTC Jan 1, 1970, at which the IPFIX Message Header leaves the Mediator. Expires April 19, 2010 [Page 10] Internet-Draft October 2009 It is RECOMMENDED that Mediators handle time using absolute timestamps (e.g. flowStartSeconds, flowStartMilliseconds, flowStartNanoseconds), which are specified relative to the UNIX epoch (00:00 UTC 1 Jan 1970), where possible, rather than relative timestamps (e.g. flowStartSysUpTime, flowStartDeltaMicroseconds), which are specified relative to protocol structures such as system initialization or message export time. The latter are difficult to manage for two reasons. First, they require constant translation, as the system initialization time of an intermediate system and the export time of an intermediate message will change across mediation operations. Further, relative timestamps introduce range problems. For example, when using the flowStartDeltaMicroseconds and flowEndDeltaMicroseconds Information Elements [RFC5102], the Data Record must be exported within a maximum of 71 minutes after its creation. Otherwise, the 32-bit counter would not be sufficient to contain the flow start time offset. Those time constraints might be incompatible with some of the Intermediate Processes: Intermediate Aggregation Process (temporal) and Intermediate Correlation Process, for example. EDITOR'S NOTE: when an IPFIX Concentrator aggregates information from different Flow Records, what should be the time reported? 3.4. Observation Point Management EDITOR'S NOTE: Do we want to aggregate the observation points? EDITOR'S NOTE: Do we want to export the originalExporterIPaddress? Do we want a series of new IEs for that? 3.4.1. Observation Domain Management EDITOR'S NOTE: to be discussed Solution 1: if we observe from different ODs, then the new OD must always be 0. Solution 2: if we observe from different ODs, the MD must compute a new OD id, unique to the MD Solution 3: if we observe from different ODs, then the new OD must always be 0 and a new Options Template must contain the list of OD. Expires April 19, 2010 [Page 11] Internet-Draft October 2009 Solution 4: we always introduce the Original Exporter ID so that the (Original Exporter, Original OD) pair is unique Solution 5: If we observe from different ODs, ODs are preserved when 1) data records are not moved to different messages and 2) ODs don't collide. In case 2, ODs are mapped by the mediator. Mediators should attempt the minimum possible OD mapping. Keep in mind ODs are a protocol-specific identifier meant to keep templates and scopes from colliding, NOT to export any actual information about the collection infrastructure. A first pass at text for this alternative appears below. A Mediator SHOULD attempt to preserve the Observation Domain IDs of incoming messages when processing IPFIX data on a per IPFIX Message basis in order to preserve the scope of mediated (Options) Templates. When information comes to a IPFIX Mediator from two separate Exporting Processes bearing the same Observation Domain ID, the Mediator SHOULD assign a new Observation Domain ID for one of the Observation Domains. Keeping Observation Domains separate ensures that re-exported Templates and Options will not collide without requiring rewriting. When mixing Data Records from multiple Messages received from multiple Observation Domains, or generating new Data Records from the result of some intermediate function on Data Records from multiple IPFIX Messages received from multiple Observation Domains, a Mediator SHOULD assign a new Observation Domain ID for the exported IPFIX Messages. This is consistent with the preservation guideline above, as in most if not all such circumstances, the IPFIX Mediator will be generating new Templates itself as a consequence of the mediation being performed. 3.5. Specific Reporting Requirements Some specific Options Templates and Options Template Records are necessary to provide extra information about the Flow Records and about the Metering Process. The Option Template and Options Template Records defined in these subsections, which impose some constraints on the Metering Process and Exporting Process implementations, MAY be implemented. If implemented, the specific Option Templates SHOULD be implemented as specified in these subsections. Expires April 19, 2010 [Page 12] Internet-Draft October 2009 The minimum set of Information Elements is always specified in these Specific IPFIX Options Templates. Nevertheless, extra Information Elements may be used in these specific Options Templates. 3.5.1. The Flow Keys Options Template Exactly like the IPFIX protocol [RFC5101], the Flow Keys Option Template specifies the structure of a Data Record for reporting the Flow Keys of reported Flows. A Flow Keys Data Record extends a particular Template Record that is referenced by its templateId identifier. The Template Record is extended by specifying which of the Information Elements contained in the corresponding Data Records describe Flow properties that serve as Flow Keys of the reported Flow. The Flow Keys Option Template SHOULD contain the following Information Elements that are defined in [RFC5102] templateId An identifier of a Template. This Information Element MUST be defined as a Scope Field. flowKeyIndicator Bitmap with the positions of the Flow Keys in the Data Records. When any Intermediate Process changes the Flow Keys, the Flow Keys Option Template MUST include the new set of Flow Keys. Typically, an Intermediate Aggregation Process reduces the number of Flow Keys 3.5.2. IPFIX Protocol Options Template The "Metering Process Statistics Options Template", "The Metering Process Reliability Statistics Options Template", and "The Exporting Process Reliability Statistics Options Template", as specified in [RFC5101], SHOULD be implemented on the IFPIX Mediator. 3.5.3. IPFIX Mediator Options Template EDITOR'S NOTE: we don't think we need a specific Options Template for the IPFIX Mediator; instead, each mediation function which has some useful metadata (for example, [IPFIX- ANON] should define its own Options Template Record(s). They should simply all look like each others. For example, a specification of IPFIX flow anonymisation including an Options Template for the export of metadata about anonymised flows is described in [IPFIX-ANON]; when anonymising Expires April 19, 2010 [Page 13] Internet-Draft October 2009 Flows Records, IPFIX Mediators SHOULD add the Options Template specified therein to annotate the exported data. 3.6. Transport Session Management We should be allowing the three transport protocols, i.e. UDP, TCP, SCTP [RFC4960] [RFC3758], as input with the caveats that go along with each transport protocol (i.e., never use UDP unless on a dedicated network...) EDITOR'S NOTE: to be completed 3.7. The Collecting Process's Side If we change something on the protocol, the Collecting Process must be able to support it. For example, if we impose that the new O.P. is a structured data composed of different remote O.P., then the C.P. must support structured data. EDITOR'S NOTE: to be completed 3.8. Sampling Management EDITOR'S NOTE: What about the accuracy of aggregated Flow Records with the sampling rates? With different sampling rates? EDITOR'S NOTE: similarly, shouldn't this section be handled in the adopted -sampling draft? Potentially. Maybe but we could write a sentence such: "if the Mediation aggregates flow records with sampling rate, the new sampling rate must be calculated" Or maybe "the Mediation can't aggregate flow records with different sampling rate" Or... 3.9. Filtering Management QUESTION: What should we do in terms of filtering? Should we try to export the filtering function? Expires April 19, 2010 [Page 14] Internet-Draft October 2009 4. New Intermediate Function How should new intermediate functions be plugged into this protocol? OR maybe this is a framework question? 5. Security Considerations The same security considerations as for the IPFIX Protocol [RFC5101] apply. 6. IANA Considerations EDITOR'S NOTE: to be updated with any Mediation's specific new Information Elements. 7. References 7.1. Normative References [RFC2119] S. Bradner, Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels, BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997 [RFC3758] Stewart, R., Ramalho, M, Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., and P. Conrad, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP), Partial Reliability Extension", May 2004 [RFC4960] Stewart, R., Ed., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 4960, September 2007. [RFC5101] Claise, B., Ed., "Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of IP Traffic Flow Information", RFC 5101, January 2008. [RFC5102] Quittek, J., Bryant, S., Claise, B., Aitken, P., and J. Meyer, "Information Model for IP Flow Information Export", RFC 5102, January 2008. 7.2. Informative References [RFC3917] Quittek, J., Zseby, T., Claise, B., and S. Zander, "Requirements for IP Flow Information Export", RFC 3917, October 2004 Expires April 19, 2010 [Page 15] Internet-Draft October 2009 [RFC3954] Claise, B. (Ed), "Cisco Systems NetFlow Services Export Version 9", RFC 3954, October 2004 [RFC5470] Sadasivan, G., Brownlee, N., Claise, B., and J. Quittek, "Architecture Model for IP Flow Information Export", RFC5470, March 2009 [RFC5472] Zseby, T., Boschi, E., Brownlee, N., and B. Claise, "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Applicability", RFC 5472, March 2009 [RFC5476] Claise, B., Quittek, J., and A. Johnson, "Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Protocol Specifications", RFC 5476, March 2009. [IPFIX-MED-PS] Kobayashi, A. (Ed), Claise, B. (Ed), "IPFIX Mediation: Problem Statement", draft-ietf-ipfix- mediators-problem-statement-06, Internet-Draft work in progress, October 2009. [IPFIX-MED-FMWK] Kobayashi, A., Claise, B., and K. Ishibashi, "IPFIX Mediation: Framework", draft-ietf-ipfix- mediators-framework-04, Internet-Draft work in progress, October 2009. [IPFIX-ANON] Boschi, E., Trammell, B. "IPFIX Mediation: Framework", draft-ietf-ipfix-anon-00.txt, Internet- Draft work in progress, October 2009. 8. Author's Addresses Benoit Claise Cisco Systems Inc. De Kleetlaan 6a b1 Diegem 1813 Belgium Phone: +32 2 704 5622 Email: bclaise@cisco.com Atsushi Kobayashi Expires April 19, 2010 [Page 16] Internet-Draft October 2009 NTT Information Sharing Platform Laboratories 3-9-11 Midori-cho Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585 Japan Phone: +81-422-59-3978 Email: akoba@nttv6.net URI: http://www3.plala.or.jp/akoba/ 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 Expires April 19, 2010 [Page 17]