Dear CESNET Team,
Would it be possible to use the IANA field flowDirection (61) instead of the ingressInterface (10) field to carry the configuration option output_plugin.ipfix.exporter.dir?
|
dir: 0 # Direction bit field value (0 = incoming, 1 = outgoing) |
|
#define INPUT_INTERFACE(F) F(0, 10, 4, &this->dir_bit_field) |
A previous issue (
#305) already mentions this.
This change would allow the ingressInterface (10) field to be used as intended: carrying a meaningful value provided through a configuration option such as output_plugin.ipfix.exporter.monitored_interface.
Could you please let me know if adding this change to your roadmap would be feasible?
For my team, having a meaningful ingress interface present in IPFIX is a prerequisite for adopting ipfixprobe.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best Regards,
Riccardo
Dear CESNET Team,
Would it be possible to use the IANA field flowDirection (61) instead of the ingressInterface (10) field to carry the configuration option
output_plugin.ipfix.exporter.dir?ipfixprobe/init/link0.conf.example
Line 73 in 480f208
ipfixprobe/include/ipfixprobe/ipfix-elements.hpp
Line 88 in 480f208
A previous issue (#305) already mentions this.
This change would allow the ingressInterface (10) field to be used as intended: carrying a meaningful value provided through a configuration option such as
output_plugin.ipfix.exporter.monitored_interface.Could you please let me know if adding this change to your roadmap would be feasible?
For my team, having a meaningful ingress interface present in IPFIX is a prerequisite for adopting ipfixprobe.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best Regards,
Riccardo