Hello Bill,
Thank you for letting me know the URL. I have recorded it in my memo.
Regards,
--
Tomohiko Kurahashi <kura@xxxxxxxxx>
From: wmeier@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue Sep 14 2010 22:17:19 JST
>
> kura@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Currently wireshark decodes netflow v9 type=128 as "SRC_AS_PEER" and
> > type=129 as "DST_AS_PEER". Does anyone know in which RFC or other
> > documents they are defined?
> >
> > - from packet-netflow.c:
> > |static const value_string v9_template_types[] = {
> > |...
> > | { 128, "SRC_AS_PEER" },
> > | { 129, "DST_AS_PEER" },
> >
> > In RFC5102 (for IPFIX) id=128 is defined as "bgpNextAdjacentAsNumber"
> > and id=129 as "bgpPrevAdjacentAsNumber". I think the former is equal to
> > "DST_AS_PEER" and the latter is equal to "SRC_AS_PEER".
> >
> > I'd like to know whether this difference is a bug of wireshark or not.
> >
> > Regards,
>
> A quick Google for <cisco netflow "source as peer"> shows 24 hits
> including the following:
>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/fnetflow/command/reference/fnf_02.html
>
> ----------
> <snip>
> Router# show flow exporter export-ids netflow-v9
>
> Export IDs used by fields in NetFlow-common export format:
>
> <snip>
>
> routing source as : 16
>
> routing destination as : 17
>
> routing source as peer : 129
>
> routing destination as peer : 128
>
> routing source traffic-index : 92
>
> <snip>
> ---------
>
> I'm a newbie with respect to netflow so I don't know if the two messages
> are the same in v9 and IPFIX (v10) though I expect so. Further Googling
> may provide an answer.
>
> That being said: I could imagine displaying the correct name (depending
> upon the protocol version) if the v9/v10 names are different even if the
> v9/v10 semantics are the same for a type.
>
> (I'm currently reworking the netflow dissector to fix various bugs and
> to improve the protocol dissection/display but haven't been looking at
> the actual types).
