



Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                      M. Boucadair
Request for Comments: 9710                                        Orange
Category: Standards Track                                      B. Claise
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                   Huawei
                                                           February 2025


  Simple Fixes to the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities IANA
                                Registry

Abstract

   This document provides simple fixes to the IANA "IP Flow Information
   Export (IPFIX) Entities" registry.  Specifically, this document
   provides updates to fix shortcomings in the description of some
   Information Elements (IEs), to ensure a consistent structure when
   citing an existing IANA registry, and to fix broken pointers,
   orphaned section references, etc.  The updates are also meant to
   bring some consistency among the entries of the registry.

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9710.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2025 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
   (https://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 respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
   Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
   in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction
   2.  Conventions and Definitions
   3.  Why an RFC Is Needed for These Updates
   4.  Update the Descriptions in the IANA Registry
     4.1.  sourceTransportPort
     4.2.  destinationTransportPort
     4.3.  forwardingStatus
     4.4.  collectorTransportPort
     4.5.  exporterTransportPort
   5.  Point to an Existing IANA Registry
   6.  Consistent Citation of IANA Registries
     6.1.  mplsTopLabelType
     6.2.  classificationEngineId
     6.3.  flowEndReason
     6.4.  natOriginatingAddressRealm
     6.5.  natEvent
     6.6.  firewallEvent
     6.7.  biflowDirection
     6.8.  observationPointType
     6.9.  anonymizationTechnique
     6.10. natType
     6.11. selectorAlgorithm
     6.12. informationElementDataType
     6.13. informationElementSemantics
     6.14. informationElementUnits
     6.15. portRangeStart
     6.16. portRangeEnd
     6.17. ingressInterfaceType
     6.18. egressInterfaceType
     6.19. valueDistributionMethod
     6.20. flowSelectorAlgorithm
     6.21. dataLinkFrameType
     6.22. mibCaptureTimeSemantics
     6.23. natQuotaExceededEvent
     6.24. natThresholdEvent
   7.  Miscellaneous Updates
     7.1.  collectionTimeMilliseconds
     7.2.  messageMD5Checksum
     7.3.  anonymizationFlags
     7.4.  informationElementDescription
     7.5.  distinctCountOfDestinationIPAddress
     7.6.  externalAddressRealm
   8.  Security Considerations
   9.  IANA Considerations
   10. References
     10.1.  Normative References
     10.2.  Informative References
   Acknowledgments
   Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

   When the Operations and Management Area Working Group (OPSAWG) was
   considering [RFC9565], which obsoletes [RFC7125], the WG realized
   that some parts of the IANA "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
   Entities" registry [IANA-IPFIX] were not up to date.  This document
   updates the IANA registry and brings some consistency among the
   entries of the registry.

   As discussed with IANA during the development of [RFC9487], the
   "Additional Information" entry in [IANA-IPFIX] should contain a link
   to an existing registry, when applicable, as opposed to having:

   *  A link to an existing registry in the "Description" entry.

   *  The registry detailed values repeated in the "Description" entry.
      This practice has the drawback that the description must be
      updated each time the registry is updated.

   Therefore, this document lists a set of simple fixes to the IPFIX
   registry [IANA-IPFIX].  These fixes are classified as follows:

   *  Updates to fix a shortcoming in the description of an IE
      (Section 4).

   *  Updates to include a pointer to an existing IANA registry
      (Section 5).

   *  Updates to ensure a consistent structure when calling an existing
      IANA registry (Section 6).

   *  Miscellaneous updates to fix broken pointers, orphaned section
      references, etc.  (Section 7).

   These updates are also meant to facilitate the automatic extraction
   of the values maintained in IANA registries (e.g., with a cron job),
   required by Collectors to be able to support new IPFIX IEs and, more
   importantly, adequately interpret new values in registries specified
   by those IPFIX IEs.

   Note that, as per Section 5 of [RFC7012], [IANA-IPFIX] is the
   normative reference for the IPFIX IEs that were defined in [RFC5102].
   Therefore, the updates in this document do not update any part of
   [RFC7011].

   Likewise, this document is not marked as formally updating [RFC5477],
   [RFC5610], [RFC5655], [RFC6235], [RFC6759], [RFC7014], [RFC7015],
   [RFC7133], [RFC7270], [RFC8038], and [RFC8158].

2.  Conventions and Definitions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   This document uses the IPFIX-specific terminology (Information
   Element, Template, Collector, Data Record, Flow Record, Exporting
   Process, Collecting Process, etc.) defined in Section 2 of [RFC7011].
   As in [RFC7011], these IPFIX-specific terms have the first letter of
   a word capitalized.

3.  Why an RFC Is Needed for These Updates

   Many of the edits in this document may be handled by the IPFIX
   Experts (informally called the IE-DOCTORS [RFC7013]).  However, and
   given that many of the impacted IEs were created via the IETF stream,
   the following from Section 5.1 of [RFC7013] is followed:

   |  This process should not in any way be construed as allowing the
   |  IE-DOCTORS to overrule IETF consensus.  Specifically, Information
   |  Elements in the IANA IE registry that were added with IETF
   |  consensus require IETF consensus for revision or deprecation.

4.  Update the Descriptions in the IANA Registry

4.1.  sourceTransportPort

4.1.1.  OLD

   Description:  The source port identifier in the transport header.
      For the transport protocols UDP, TCP, and SCTP, this is the source
      port number given in the respective header.  This field MAY also
      be used for future transport protocols that have 16-bit source
      port identifiers.

   Additional Information:  See [RFC768] for the definition of the UDP
      source port field.

      See [RFC9293] for the definition of the TCP source port field.

      See [RFC9260] for the definition of SCTP.

      Additional information on defined UDP and TCP port numbers can be
      found at [https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-
      numbers].

4.1.2.  NEW

   Description:  The source port identifier in the transport protocol
      header.  For transport protocols such as UDP, TCP, SCTP, and DCCP,
      this is the source port number given in the respective header.
      This field MAY also be used for future transport protocols that
      have 16-bit source port identifiers.

   Additional Information:  See [RFC768] for the definition of the UDP
      source port field.

      See [RFC9293] for the definition of the TCP source port field.

      See [RFC9260] for the definition of the SCTP source port number
      field.

      See [RFC4340] for the definition of the DCCP source port field.

      See the assigned transport protocol (e.g., UDP, TCP, SCTP, and
      DCCP) port numbers [https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-
      names-port-numbers].

4.2.  destinationTransportPort

4.2.1.  OLD

   Description:  The destination port identifier in the transport
      header.  For the transport protocols UDP, TCP, and SCTP, this is
      the destination port number given in the respective header.  This
      field MAY also be used for future transport protocols that have
      16-bit destination port identifiers.

   Additional Information:  See [RFC768] for the definition of the UDP
      source port field.

      See [RFC9293] for the definition of the TCP source port field.

      See [RFC9260] for the definition of SCTP.

      Additional information on defined UDP and TCP port numbers can be
      found at https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-
      numbers.

4.2.2.  NEW

   Description:  The destination port identifier in the transport
      protocol header.  For transport protocols such as UDP, TCP, SCTP,
      and DCCP, this is the destination port number given in the
      respective header.  This field MAY also be used for future
      transport protocols that have 16-bit destination port identifiers.

   Additional Information:  See [RFC768] for the definition of the UDP
      destination port field.

      See [RFC9293] for the definition of the TCP destination port
      field.

      See [RFC9260] for the definition of the SCTP destination port
      number field.

      See [RFC4340] for the definition of the DCCP destination port
      field.

      See the assigned transport protocol (e.g., UDP, TCP, SCTP, and
      DCCP) port numbers [https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-
      names-port-numbers].

4.3.  forwardingStatus

   The current forwardingStatus entry in [IANA-IPFIX] deviates from what
   is provided in [RFC7270].  In particular, the registered Abstract
   Data Type is unsigned8, while it must be unsigned32.  The following
   update fixes that issue.  The description is also updated to clarify
   the use of the reduced-size encoding as per Section 6.2 of [RFC7011].

4.3.1.  OLD

   Description:  This Information Element describes the forwarding
      status of the flow and any attached reasons.

      The layout of the encoding is as follows:

                         MSB  -  0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7  -  LSB
                               +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
                               | Status|  Reason code or flags |
                               +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+

                         See the Forwarding Status sub-registries at
                         [Forwarding-Status].

                         Examples:

                         value : 0x40 = 64
                         binary: 01000000
                         decode: 01        -> Forward
                                   000000  -> No further information

                         value : 0x89 = 137
                         binary: 10001001
                         decode: 10        -> Drop
                                   001001  -> Bad TTL

   Additional Information:  See "NetFlow Version 9 Flow-Record Format"
      [CCO-NF9FMT].

   Abstract Data Type:  unsigned8

4.3.2.  NEW

   Description:  This Information Element describes the forwarding
      status of the flow and any attached reasons.  IPFIX reduced-size
      encoding is used as required.

      A structure is currently associated with the least-significant
      byte.  Future versions may be defined to associate meanings with
      the remaining bits.

      The current version of the Information Element should be exported
      as unsigned8.

      The layout of the encoding is as follows:

                         MSB  -  0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7  -  LSB
                               +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
                               | Status|  Reason code or flags |
                               +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+

                         Examples:

                         value : 0x40 = 64
                         binary: 01000000
                         decode: 01        -> Forward
                                   000000  -> No further information

                         value : 0x89 = 137
                         binary: 10001001
                         decode: 10        -> Drop
                                   001001  -> Bad TTL

   Additional Information:  See "NetFlow Version 9 Flow-Record Format"
      [CCO-NF9FMT].  See the "Forwarding Status (Value 89)" registry
      [https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix].

   Abstract Data Type:  unsigned32

4.4.  collectorTransportPort

4.4.1.  OLD

   Description:  The destination port identifier to which the Exporting
      Process sends Flow information.  For the transport protocols UDP,
      TCP, and SCTP, this is the destination port number.  This field
      MAY also be used for future transport protocols that have 16-bit
      source port identifiers.

   Additional Information:  See [RFC768] for the definition of the UDP
      source port field.

      See [RFC9293] for the definition of the TCP source port field.

      See [RFC9260] for the definition of SCTP.

      Additional information on defined UDP and TCP port numbers can be
      found at [https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-
      numbers].

4.4.2.  NEW

   Description:  The destination port identifier to which the Exporting
      Process sends Flow information.  For transport protocols such as
      UDP, TCP, and SCTP, this is the destination port number.  This
      field MAY also be used for future transport protocols that have
      16-bit source port identifiers.

   Additional Information:  See [RFC768] for the definition of the UDP
      destination port field.

      See [RFC9293] for the definition of the TCP destination port
      field.

      See [RFC9260] for the definition of the SCTP destination port
      number field.

      See the assigned transport protocol (e.g., UDP, TCP, and SCTP)
      port numbers [https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-
      numbers].

4.5.  exporterTransportPort

4.5.1.  OLD

   Description:  The source port identifier from which the Exporting
      Process sends Flow information.  For the transport protocols UDP,
      TCP, and SCTP, this is the source port number.  This field MAY
      also be used for future transport protocols that have 16-bit
      source port identifiers.  This field may be useful for
      distinguishing multiple Exporting Processes that use the same IP
      address.

   Additional Information:  See [RFC768] for the definition of the UDP
      source port field.

      See [RFC9293] for the definition of the TCP source port field.

      See [RFC9260] for the definition of SCTP.

      Additional information on defined UDP and TCP port numbers can be
      found at [https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-
      numbers].

4.5.2.  NEW

   Description:  The source port identifier from which the Exporting
      Process sends Flow information.  For transport protocols such as
      UDP, TCP, and SCTP, this is the source port number.  This field
      MAY also be used for future transport protocols that have 16-bit
      source port identifiers.

   Additional Information:  See [RFC768] for the definition of the UDP
      source port field.

      See [RFC9293] for the definition of the TCP source port field.

      See [RFC9260] for the definition of the SCTP source port number
      field.

      See the assigned transport protocol (e.g., UDP, TCP, and SCTP)
      port numbers [https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-
      numbers].

5.  Point to an Existing IANA Registry

   IANA has updated the following entries by adding the indicated
   "Additional Information" to the [IANA-IPFIX] registry.  (In Table 1,
   "ID" refers to "ElementID".)

   +===+=========================+=====================================+
   |ID | Name                    | Additional Information              |
   +===+=========================+=====================================+
   |32 | icmpTypeCodeIPv4        | See the "ICMP Type Numbers"         |
   |   |                         | registry                            |
   |   |                         | [https://www.iana.org/assignments/  |
   |   |                         | icmp-parameters]                    |
   +---+-------------------------+-------------------------------------+
   |33 | igmpType                | See the "IGMP Type Numbers"         |
   |   |                         | registry                            |
   |   |                         | [https://www.iana.org/assignments/  |
   |   |                         | igmp-type-numbers]                  |
   +---+-------------------------+-------------------------------------+
   |139| icmpTypeCodeIPv6        | See the "ICMPv6 'type' Numbers"     |
   |   |                         | and "ICMPv6 'Code' Fields"          |
   |   |                         | registries                          |
   |   |                         | [https://www.iana.org/assignments/  |
   |   |                         | icmpv6-parameters]                  |
   +---+-------------------------+-------------------------------------+
   |176| icmpTypeIPv4            | See the "ICMP Type Numbers"         |
   |   |                         | registry                            |
   |   |                         | [https://www.iana.org/assignments/  |
   |   |                         | icmp-parameters]                    |
   +---+-------------------------+-------------------------------------+
   |177| icmpCodeIPv4            | See the "ICMP Type Numbers"         |
   |   |                         | registry                            |
   |   |                         | [https://www.iana.org/assignments/  |
   |   |                         | icmp-parameters]                    |
   +---+-------------------------+-------------------------------------+
   |178| icmpTypeIPv6            | See the "ICMPv6 'type' Numbers"     |
   |   |                         | registry                            |
   |   |                         | [https://www.iana.org/assignments/  |
   |   |                         | icmpv6-parameters]                  |
   +---+-------------------------+-------------------------------------+
   |179| icmpCodeIPv6            | See the "ICMPv6 'Code' Fields"      |
   |   |                         | registry                            |
   |   |                         | [https://www.iana.org/assignments/  |
   |   |                         | icmpv6-parameters]                  |
   +---+-------------------------+-------------------------------------+
   |346| privateEnterpriseNumber | See the "Private Enterprise         |
   |   |                         | Numbers (PENs)" registry            |
   |   |                         | [https://www.iana.org/assignments/  |
   |   |                         | enterprise-numbers]                 |
   +---+-------------------------+-------------------------------------+

        Table 1: Cite an IANA Registry Under Additional Information

6.  Consistent Citation of IANA Registries

   IANA has updated the "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities"
   registry [IANA-IPFIX] for each of the IE entries listed in the
   following subsections.

6.1.  mplsTopLabelType

6.1.1.  OLD

   Description:  This field identifies the control protocol that
      allocated the top-of-stack label.  Values for this field are
      listed in the MPLS label type registry.

      See https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml#ipfix-mpls-
      label-type.

   Additional Information:  See [RFC3031] for the MPLS label structure.

      See the list of MPLS label types assigned by IANA at
      [https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-label-values].

6.1.2.  NEW

   Description:  This field identifies the control protocol that
      allocated the top-of-stack label.  Values for this field are
      listed in the MPLS label type registry.

   Additional Information:  See the IPFIX MPLS label type (Value 46)
      [https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix].

      See [RFC3031] for the MPLS label structure.

6.2.  classificationEngineId

6.2.1.  OLD

   Description:  A unique identifier for the engine that determined the
      Selector ID.  Thus, the Classification Engine ID defines the
      context for the Selector ID.  The Classification Engine can be
      considered a specific registry for application assignments.

      Values for this field are listed in the Classification Engine IDs
      registry.  See https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/
      ipfix.xhtml#classification-engine-ids.

6.2.2.  NEW

   Description:  A unique identifier for the engine that determined the
      Selector ID.  Thus, the Classification Engine ID defines the
      context for the Selector ID.  The Classification Engine can be
      considered a specific registry for application assignments.

      Values for this field are listed in the Classification Engine IDs
      registry.

   Additional Information:  See the "Classification Engine IDs (Value
      101)" registry [https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix].

6.3.  flowEndReason

6.3.1.  OLD

   Description:  The reason for Flow termination.  Values are listed in
      the flowEndReason registry.  See
      https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml#ipfix-flow-end-
      reason.

6.3.2.  NEW

   Description:  The reason for Flow termination.  Values are listed in
      the flowEndReason registry.

   Additional Information:  See the "flowEndReason (Value 136)" registry
      [https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix].

6.4.  natOriginatingAddressRealm

6.4.1.  OLD

   Description:  Indicates whether the session was created because
      traffic originated in the private or public address realm.
      postNATSourceIPv4Address, postNATDestinationIPv4Address,
      postNAPTSourceTransportPort, and postNAPTDestinationTransportPort
      are qualified with the address realm in perspective.

      Values are listed in the natOriginatingAddressRealm registry.  See
      https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml#ipfix-nat-
      originating-address-realm.

   Additional Information:  See [RFC3022] for the definition of NAT.

6.4.2.  NEW

   Description:  Indicates whether the session was created because
      traffic originated in the private or public address realm.
      postNATSourceIPv4Address, postNATDestinationIPv4Address,
      postNAPTSourceTransportPort, and postNAPTDestinationTransportPort
      are qualified with the address realm in perspective.

      Values are listed in the natOriginatingAddressRealm registry.

   Additional Information:  See the "natOriginatingAddressRealm (Value
      229)" registry [https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix].

      See [RFC3022] for the definition of NAT.

6.5.  natEvent

6.5.1.  OLD

   Description:  This Information Element identifies a NAT event.  This
      IE identifies the type of a NAT event.  Examples of NAT events
      include, but are not limited to, NAT translation create, NAT
      translation delete, Threshold Reached, or Threshold Exceeded, etc.
      Values for this Information Element are listed in the "NAT Event
      Type" registry, see https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/
      ipfix.xhtml#ipfix-nat-event-type.

   Additional Information:  See [RFC3022] for the definition of NAT.

      See [RFC3234] for the definition of middleboxes.

      See [RFC8158] for the definitions of values 4-16.

6.5.2.  NEW

   Description:  This Information Element identifies a NAT event.  This
      IE identifies the type of a NAT event.  Examples of NAT events
      include, but are not limited to, NAT translation create, NAT
      translation delete, Threshold Reached, or Threshold Exceeded, etc.
      Values for this Information Element are listed in the "NAT Event
      Type" registry.

   Additional Information:  See the "NAT Event Type (Value 230)"
      registry [https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix].

      See [RFC3022] for the definition of NAT.

      See [RFC8158] for the definitions of values 4-16.

6.6.  firewallEvent

6.6.1.  OLD

   Description:  Indicates a firewall event.  Allowed values are listed
      in the firewallEvent registry.

      See https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml#ipfix-
      firewall-event.

6.6.2.  NEW

   Description:  Indicates a firewall event.  Allowed values are listed
      in the firewallEvent registry.

   Additional Information:  See the "firewallEvent (Value 233)" registry
      [https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix].

6.7.  biflowDirection

6.7.1.  OLD

   Description:  A description of the direction assignment method used
      to assign the Biflow Source and Destination.  This Information
      Element MAY be present in a Flow Data Record, or applied to all
      flows exported from an Exporting Process or Observation Domain
      using IPFIX Options.  If this Information Element is not present
      in a Flow Record or associated with a Biflow via scope, it is
      assumed that the configuration of the direction assignment method
      is done out-of-band.  Note that when using IPFIX Options to apply
      this Information Element to all flows within an Observation Domain
      or from an Exporting Process, the Option SHOULD be sent reliably.
      If reliable transport is not available (i.e., when using UDP),
      this Information Element SHOULD appear in each Flow Record.
      Values are listed in the biflowDirection registry.  See
      [https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml#ipfix-biflow-
      direction].

6.7.2.  NEW

   Description:  A description of the direction assignment method used
      to assign the Biflow Source and Destination.  This Information
      Element MAY be present in a Flow Data Record, or applied to all
      flows exported from an Exporting Process or Observation Domain
      using IPFIX Options.  If this Information Element is not present
      in a Flow Record or associated with a Biflow via scope, it is
      assumed that the configuration of the direction assignment method
      is done out-of-band.  Note that when using IPFIX Options to apply
      this Information Element to all flows within an Observation Domain
      or from an Exporting Process, the Option SHOULD be sent reliably.
      If reliable transport is not available (i.e., when using UDP),
      this Information Element SHOULD appear in each Flow Record.
      Values are listed in the biflowDirection registry.

   Additional Information:  See the "biflowDirection (Value 239)"
      registry [https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix].

6.8.  observationPointType

6.8.1.  OLD

   Description:  Type of observation point.  Values are listed in the
      observationPointType registry.  See
      https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml#ipfix-
      observation-point-type.

6.8.2.  NEW

   Description:  Type of observation point.  Values are listed in the
      observationPointType registry.

   Additional Information:  See the "observationPointType (Value 277)"
      registry [https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix].

6.9.  anonymizationTechnique

6.9.1.  OLD

   Description:  A description of the anonymization technique applied to
      a referenced Information Element within a referenced Template.
      Each technique may be applicable only to certain Information
      Elements and recommended only for certain Information Elements.
      Values are listed in the anonymizationTechnique registry.  See
      https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml#ipfix-
      anonymization-technique.

6.9.2.  NEW

   Description:  A description of the anonymization technique applied to
      a referenced Information Element within a referenced Template.
      Each technique may be applicable only to certain Information
      Elements and recommended only for certain Information Elements.
      Values are listed in the anonymizationTechnique registry.

   Additional Information:  See the "anonymizationTechnique (Value 286)"
      registry [https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/].

6.10.  natType

6.10.1.  OLD

   Description:  Values are listed in the natType registry.

      See https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml#ipfix-nat-
      type.

   Additional Information:  See [RFC3022] for the definition of NAT.

      See [RFC1631] for the definition of NAT44.

      See [RFC6144] for the definition of NAT64.

      See [RFC6146] for the definition of NAT46.

      See [RFC6296] for the definition of NAT66.

      See [RFC791] for the definition of IPv4.

      See [RFC8200] for the definition of IPv6.

6.10.2.  NEW

   Description:  This Information Element identifies the NAT type
      applied to packets of the Flow.

      Values are listed in the natType registry.

   Additional Information:  See the "natType (Value 297)" registry
      [https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix].

      See [RFC3022] for the definition of NAT (commonly named NAT44).

      See [RFC6144] for the definition of NAT46.

      See [RFC6146] for the definition of NAT64.

      See [RFC6296] for the definition of NPTv6.

      See [RFC791] for the definition of IPv4.

      See [RFC8200] for the definition of IPv6.

6.11.  selectorAlgorithm

6.11.1.  OLD

   Description:  This Information Element identifies the packet
      selection methods (e.g., Filtering, Sampling) that are applied by
      the Selection Process.  Most of these methods have parameters.
      Further Information Elements are needed to fully specify packet
      selection with these methods and all their parameters.  The
      methods listed below are defined in [RFC5475].  For their
      parameters, Information Elements are defined in the information
      model document.  The names of these Information Elements are
      listed for each method identifier.  Further method identifiers may
      be added to the list below.  It might be necessary to define new
      Information Elements to specify their parameters.

      The following packet selection methods identifiers are defined
      here: https://www.iana.org/assignments/psamp-parameters.

      There is a broad variety of possible parameters that could be used
      for Property match Filtering (5) but currently there are no agreed
      parameters specified.

6.11.2.  NEW

   Description:  This Information Element identifies the packet
      selection methods (e.g., Filtering, Sampling) that are applied by
      the Selection Process.  Most of these methods have parameters.
      Further Information Elements are needed to fully specify packet
      selection with these methods and all of their parameters.  For the
      methods parameters, Information Elements are defined in the IPFIX
      registry [IANA-IPFIX].  The names of these Information Elements
      are listed for each method identifier.  Further method identifiers
      may be added to the list.  It might be necessary to define new
      Information Elements to specify their parameters.

      There is a broad variety of possible parameters that could be used
      for Property Match Filtering (5) but currently there are no agreed
      parameters specified.

   Additional Information:  See the "Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Parameters"
      registry [https://www.iana.org/assignments/psamp-parameters].

6.12.  informationElementDataType

   Note that the "informationElementDataType" registry has been renamed
   as the "IPFIX Information Element Data Types" registry.

6.12.1.  OLD

   Description:  A description of the abstract data type of an IPFIX
      information element.  These are taken from the abstract data types
      defined in section 3.1 of the IPFIX Information Model [RFC5102];
      see that section for more information on the types described in
      the [informationElementDataType] subregistry.  These types are
      registered in the IANA IPFIX Information Element Data Type
      subregistry.  This subregistry is intended to assign numbers for
      type names, not to provide a mechanism for adding data types to
      the IPFIX Protocol, and as such requires a Standards Action
      [RFC8126] to modify.

6.12.2.  NEW

   Description:  A description of the abstract data type of an IPFIX
      information element.  These are taken from the abstract data types
      defined in Section 3.1 of the IPFIX Information Model [RFC5102];
      see that section for more information on the types described in
      the "IPFIX Information Element Data Types" registry.  These types
      are registered in the "IPFIX Information Element Data Types"
      registry.

      The "IPFIX Information Element Data Types" registry is intended to
      assign numbers for type names, not to provide a mechanism for
      adding data types to the IPFIX Protocol; as such, modifications
      require Standards Action [RFC8126].

   Additional Information:  See the "IPFIX Information Element Data
      Types" registry [https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix].

6.13.  informationElementSemantics

6.13.1.  OLD

   Description:  A description of the semantics of an IPFIX Information
      Element.  These are taken from the data type semantics defined in
      section 3.2 of the IPFIX Information Model [RFC5102]; see that
      section for more information on the types defined in the [IPFIX
      Information Element Semantics] subregistry.  This field may take
      the values in the semantics registry; the special value 0x00
      (default) is used to note that no semantics apply to the field; it
      cannot be manipulated by a Collecting Process or File Reader that
      does not understand it a priori.  These semantics are registered
      in the IANA IPFIX Information Element Semantics subregistry.  This
      subregistry is intended to assign numbers for semantics names, not
      to provide a mechanism for adding semantics to the IPFIX Protocol,
      and as such requires a Standards Action [RFC8126] to modify.

6.13.2.  NEW

   Description:  A description of the semantics of an IPFIX Information
      Element.  These are taken from the data type semantics defined in
      Section 3.2 of the IPFIX Information Model [RFC5102]; see that
      section for more information on the types defined in the "IPFIX
      Information Element Semantics" registry.  This field may take the
      values in the "IPFIX Information Element Semantics" registry.  The
      special value 0x00 (default) is used to note that no semantics
      apply to the field; it cannot be manipulated by a Collecting
      Process or File Reader that does not understand it a priori.

      The "IPFIX Information Element Semantics" registry is intended to
      assign numbers for semantics names, not to provide a mechanism for
      adding semantics to the IPFIX Protocol; as such, modifications
      require Standards Action [RFC8126].

   Additional Information:  See the "IPFIX Information Element
      Semantics" registry [https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix].

6.14.  informationElementUnits

   Note that the "informationElementsUnits" registry has been renamed as
   the "IPFIX Information Element Units" registry.

6.14.1.  OLD

   Description:  A description of the units of an IPFIX Information
      Element.  These correspond to the units implicitly defined in the
      Information Element definitions in section 5 of the IPFIX
      Information Model [RFC5102]; see that section for more information
      on the types described in the informationElementsUnits
      subregistry.  This field may take the values in Table 3 below; the
      special value 0x00 (none) is used to note that the field is
      unitless.  These types are registered in the [IANA IPFIX
      Information Element Units] subregistry.

6.14.2.  NEW

   Description:  A description of the units of an IPFIX Information
      Element.  These correspond to the units implicitly defined in the
      Information Element definitions in Section 5 of the IPFIX
      Information Model [RFC5102]; see that section for more information
      on the types described in the "IPFIX Information Element Units"
      registry.  These types can take the values in the "IPFIX
      Information Element Units" registry.  The special value 0x00
      (none) is used to note that the field is unitless.

   Additional Information:  See the "IPFIX Information Element Units"
      registry [https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix].

6.15.  portRangeStart

6.15.1.  OLD

   Description:  The port number identifying the start of a range of
      ports.  A value of zero indicates that the range start is not
      specified, ie the range is defined in some other way.

      Additional information on defined TCP port numbers can be found at
      https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers.

6.15.2.  NEW

   Description:  The port number identifying the start of a range of
      port numbers.  A value of zero indicates that the range start is
      not specified, i.e., the range is defined in some other way.

   Additional Information:  See the assigned transport protocol (e.g.,
      UDP, TCP, SCTP, and DCCP) port numbers
      [https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers].

6.16.  portRangeEnd

6.16.1.  OLD

   Description:  The port number identifying the end of a range of
      ports.  A value of zero indicates that the range end is not
      specified, ie the range is defined in some other way.  Additional
      information on defined TCP port numbers can be found at
      https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers.

6.16.2.  NEW

   Description:  The port number identifying the end of a range of port
      numbers.  A value of zero indicates that the range end is not
      specified, i.e., the range is defined in some other way.

   Additional Information:  See the assigned transport protocol (e.g.,
      UDP, TCP, SCTP, and DCCP) port numbers
      [https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers].

6.17.  ingressInterfaceType

6.17.1.  OLD

   Description:  The type of interface where packets of this Flow are
      being received.  The value matches the value of managed object
      'ifType' as defined in https://www.iana.org/assignments/
      ianaiftype-mib.

   Additional Information:  https://www.iana.org/assignments/ianaiftype-
      mib

6.17.2.  NEW

   Description:  The type of interface where packets of this Flow are
      being received.  The value matches the value of managed object
      'ifType'.

   Additional Information:  See the "IANAifType-MIB" registry
      [https://www.iana.org/assignments/ianaiftype-mib].

6.18.  egressInterfaceType

6.18.1.  OLD

   Description:  The type of interface where packets of this Flow are
      being sent.  The value matches the value of managed object
      'ifType' as defined in https://www.iana.org/assignments/
      ianaiftype-mib.

   Additional Information:  https://www.iana.org/assignments/ianaiftype-
      mib

6.18.2.  NEW

   Description:  The type of interface where packets of this Flow are
      being sent.  The value matches the value of managed object
      'ifType'.

   Additional Information:  See the "IANAifType-MIB" registry
      [https://www.iana.org/assignments/ianaiftype-mib].

6.19.  valueDistributionMethod

6.19.1.  OLD

   Description:  A description of the method used to distribute the
      counters from Contributing Flows into the Aggregated Flow records
      described by an associated scope, generally a Template.  The
      method is deemed to apply to all the non-key Information Elements
      in the referenced scope for which value distribution is a valid
      operation; if the originalFlowsInitiated and/or
      originalFlowsCompleted Information Elements appear in the
      Template, they are not subject to this distribution method, as
      they each infer their own distribution method.  The
      valueDistributionMethod registry is intended to list a complete
      set of possible value distribution methods.

      See https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml#ipfix-
      value-distribution-method.

6.19.2.  NEW

   Description:  A description of the method used to distribute the
      counters from Contributing Flows into the Aggregated Flow records
      described by an associated scope, generally a Template.  The
      method is deemed to apply to all the non-key Information Elements
      in the referenced scope for which value distribution is a valid
      operation; if the originalFlowsInitiated and/or
      originalFlowsCompleted Information Elements appear in the
      Template, they are not subject to this distribution method, as
      they each infer their own distribution method.  The
      "valueDistributionMethod (Value 384)" registry is intended to list
      a complete set of possible value distribution methods.

   Additional Information:  See the "valueDistributionMethod (Value
      384)" registry [https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix].

6.20.  flowSelectorAlgorithm

6.20.1.  OLD

   Description:  This Information Element identifies the Intermediate
      Flow Selection Process technique (e.g., Filtering, Sampling) that
      is applied by the Intermediate Flow Selection Process.  Most of
      these techniques have parameters.  Its configuration parameter(s)
      MUST be clearly specified.  Further Information Elements are
      needed to fully specify packet selection with these methods and
      all their parameters.  Further method identifiers may be added to
      the flowSelectorAlgorithm registry.  It might be necessary to
      define new Information Elements to specify their parameters.

      Please note that the purpose of the flow selection techniques
      described in this document is the improvement of measurement
      functions as defined in the Scope (Section 1).

      The Intermediate Flow Selection Process Techniques identifiers are
      defined at https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/
      ipfix.xhtml#ipfix-flowselectoralgorithm.

6.20.2.  NEW

   Description:  This Information Element identifies the Intermediate
      Flow Selection Process technique (e.g., Filtering, Sampling) that
      is applied by the Intermediate Flow Selection Process.  Most of
      these techniques have parameters.  Its configuration parameter(s)
      MUST be clearly specified.  Additional Information Elements are
      needed to fully specify packet selection with these methods and
      all of their parameters.  Additional method identifiers may be
      added to the "flowSelectorAlgorithm (Value 390)" registry.  It
      might be necessary to define new Information Elements to specify
      their parameters.

   Additional Information:  See the "flowSelectorAlgorithm (Value 390)"
      registry [https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix].

6.21.  dataLinkFrameType

6.21.1.  OLD

   Description:  This Information Element specifies the type of the
      selected data link frame.  Data link types are defined in the
      dataLinkFrameType registry.  See
      https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml#ipfix-data-
      link-frame-type.

      Further values may be assigned by IANA.  Note that the assigned
      values are bits so that multiple observations can be OR'd
      together.  The data link layer is defined in [ISO/
      IEC.7498-1:1994].

   Additional Information:  (IEEE802.3)(IEEE802.11)(ISO/IEC.7498-1:1994)

6.21.2.  NEW

   Description:  This Information Element specifies the type of the
      selected data link frame.  Data link types are defined in the
      "dataLinkFrameType (Value 408)" registry.

      Additional values may be assigned by IANA.  Note that the assigned
      values are bits so that multiple observations can be OR'd
      together.

   Additional Information:  See the "dataLinkFrameType (Value 408)"
      registry [https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix].

      More information about the data link layer can be found in
      (IEEE802.3)(IEEE802.11)(ISO/IEC.7498-1:1994).

6.22.  mibCaptureTimeSemantics

6.22.1.  OLD

   Description:  Indicates when in the lifetime of the Flow the MIB
      value was retrieved from the MIB for a mibObjectIdentifier.  This
      is used to indicate if the value exported was collected from the
      MIB closer to Flow creation or Flow export time and refers to the
      Timestamp fields included in the same Data Record.

      This field SHOULD be used when exporting a mibObjectValue that
      specifies counters or statistics.  If the MIB value was sampled by
      SNMP prior to the IPFIX Metering Process or Exporting Process
      retrieving the value (i.e., the data is already stale) and it is
      important to know the exact sampling time, then an additional
      observationTime* element should be paired with the OID using IPFIX
      Structured Data [RFC6313].  Similarly, if different MIB capture
      times apply to different mibObjectValue elements within the Data
      Record, then individual mibCaptureTimeSemantics Information
      Elements should be paired with each OID using IPFIX Structured
      Data.

      Values are listed in the mibCaptureTimeSemantics registry.  See
      https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml#ipfix-mib-
      capture-time-semantics.

6.22.2.  NEW

   Description:  Indicates when in the lifetime of the Flow the MIB
      value was retrieved from the MIB for a mibObjectIdentifier.  This
      is used to indicate if the value exported was collected from the
      MIB closer to Flow creation or Flow export time and refers to the
      Timestamp fields included in the same Data Record.

      This field SHOULD be used when exporting a mibObjectValue that
      specifies counters or statistics.  If the MIB value was sampled by
      SNMP prior to the IPFIX Metering Process or Exporting Process
      retrieving the value (i.e., the data is already stale) and it is
      important to know the exact sampling time, then an additional
      observationTime* element should be paired with the OID using IPFIX
      Structured Data [RFC6313].  Similarly, if different MIB capture
      times apply to different mibObjectValue elements within the Data
      Record, then individual mibCaptureTimeSemantics Information
      Elements should be paired with each OID using IPFIX Structured
      Data.

      Values are listed in the "mibCaptureTimeSemantics (Value 448)"
      registry.

   Additional Information:  See the "mibCaptureTimeSemantics (Value
      448)" registry [https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix].

6.23.  natQuotaExceededEvent

6.23.1.  OLD

   Description:  This Information Element identifies the type of a NAT
      Quota Exceeded event.  Values for this Information Element are
      listed in the "NAT Quota Exceeded Event Type" registry, see
      https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml#ipfix-nat-
      quota-exceeded-event.

   Additional Information:  See [RFC791] for the definition of the IPv4
      source address field.

      See [RFC3022] for the definition of NAT.

      See [RFC3234] for the definition of middleboxes.

6.23.2.  NEW

   Description:  This Information Element identifies the type of a NAT
      Quota Exceeded event.  Values for this Information Element are
      listed in the "NAT Quota Exceeded Event Type (Value 466)"
      registry.

   Additional Information:  See the "NAT Quota Exceeded Event Type
      (Value 466)" registry [https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix].

      See [RFC3022] for the definition of NAT.

6.24.  natThresholdEvent

6.24.1.  OLD

   Description:  This Information Element identifies a type of a NAT
      Threshold event.  Values for this Information Element are listed
      in the "NAT Threshold Event Type" registry, see
      https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml#ipfix-nat-
      threshold-event.

   Additional Information:  See [RFC791] for the definition of the IPv4
      source address field.

      See [RFC3022] for the definition of NAT.

      See [RFC3234] for the definition of middleboxes.

6.24.2.  NEW

   Description:  This Information Element identifies a type of a NAT
      Threshold event.  Values for this Information Element are listed
      in the "NAT Threshold Event Type (Value 467)" registry.

   Additional Information:  See the "NAT Threshold Event Type (Value
      467)" registry [https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix]).

      See [RFC3022] for the definition of NAT.

7.  Miscellaneous Updates

   IANA has updated the descriptions of the following entries in
   [IANA-IPFIX].

7.1.  collectionTimeMilliseconds

7.1.1.  OLD

   Description:  The absolute timestamp at which the data within the
      scope containing this Information Element was received by a
      Collecting Process.  This Information Element SHOULD be bound to
      its containing IPFIX Message via IPFIX Options and the
      messageScope Information Element, as defined below.

7.1.2.  NEW

   Description:  The absolute timestamp at which the data within the
      scope containing this Information Element was received by a
      Collecting Process.  This Information Element SHOULD be bound to
      its containing IPFIX Message via IPFIX Options and the
      messageScope Information Element.

7.2.  messageMD5Checksum

7.2.1.  OLD

   Description:  The MD5 checksum of the IPFIX Message containing this
      record.  This Information Element SHOULD be bound to its
      containing IPFIX Message via an options record and the
      messageScope Information Element, as defined below, and SHOULD
      appear only once in a given IPFIX Message.  To calculate the value
      of this Information Element, first buffer the containing IPFIX
      Message, setting the value of this Information Element to all
      zeroes.  Then calculate the MD5 checksum of the resulting buffer
      as defined in [RFC1321], place the resulting value in this
      Information Element, and export the buffered message.

      This Information Element is intended as a simple checksum only;
      therefore collision resistance and algorithm agility are not
      required, and MD5 is an appropriate message digest.  This
      Information Element has a fixed length of 16 octets.

7.2.2.  NEW

   Description:  The MD5 checksum of the IPFIX Message containing this
      record.  This Information Element SHOULD be bound to its
      containing IPFIX Message via an options record and the
      messageScope Information Element, and SHOULD appear only once in a
      given IPFIX Message.  To calculate the value of this Information
      Element, first buffer the containing IPFIX Message, setting the
      value of this Information Element to all zeroes.  Then calculate
      the MD5 checksum of the resulting buffer as defined in [RFC1321],
      place the resulting value in this Information Element, and export
      the buffered message.

      This Information Element is intended as a simple checksum only;
      therefore collision resistance and algorithm agility are not
      required, and MD5 is an appropriate message digest.  This
      Information Element has a fixed length of 16 octets.

7.3.  anonymizationFlags

7.3.1.  OLD

   +--------+----------+-----------------------------------------------+
   | bit(s) | name     | description                                   |
   | (LSB = |          |                                               |
   | 0)     |          |                                               |
   +--------+----------+-----------------------------------------------+
   | 0-1    | SC       | Stability Class: see the Stability Class      |
   |        |          | table below, and section Section 5.1.         |
   | 2      | PmA      | Perimeter Anonymization: when set (1),        |
   |        |          | source- Information Elements as described in  |
   |        |          | [RFC5103] are interpreted as external         |
   |        |          | addresses, and destination- Information       |
   |        |          | Elements as described in [RFC5103] are        |
   |        |          | interpreted as internal addresses, for the    |
   |        |          | purposes of associating                       |
   |        |          | anonymizationTechnique to Information         |
   |        |          | Elements only; see Section 7.2.2 for details. |
   |        |          | This bit MUST NOT be set when associated with |
   |        |          | a non-endpoint (i.e., source- or              |
   |        |          | destination-) Information Element.  SHOULD be |
   |        |          | consistent within a record (i.e., if a        |
   |        |          | source- Information Element has this flag     |
   |        |          | set, the corresponding destination- element   |
   |        |          | SHOULD have this flag set, and vice-versa.)   |
   +--------+----------+-----------------------------------------------+

7.3.2.  NEW

   +--------+----------+-----------------------------------------------+
   | bit(s) | name     | description                                   |
   | (LSB = |          |                                               |
   | 0)     |          |                                               |
   +--------+----------+-----------------------------------------------+
   | 0-1    | SC       | Stability Class: see the Stability Class      |
   |        |          | table below, and Section 5.1 of [RFC6235].    |
   | 2      | PmA      | Perimeter Anonymization: when set (1),        |
   |        |          | source Information Elements as described in   |
   |        |          | [RFC5103] are interpreted as external         |
   |        |          | addresses, and destination Information        |
   |        |          | Elements as described in [RFC5103] are        |
   |        |          | interpreted as internal addresses, for the    |
   |        |          | purposes of associating                       |
   |        |          | anonymizationTechnique to Information         |
   |        |          | Elements only; see Section 7.2.2 of [RFC6235] |
   |        |          | for details.                                  |
   |        |          | This bit MUST NOT be set when associated with |
   |        |          | a non-endpoint (i.e., source or               |
   |        |          | destination) Information Element.  SHOULD be  |
   |        |          | consistent within a record (i.e., if a        |
   |        |          | source Information Element has this flag      |
   |        |          | set, the corresponding destination element    |
   |        |          | SHOULD have this flag set, and vice versa.)   |
   +--------+----------+-----------------------------------------------+

7.4.  informationElementDescription

7.4.1.  OLD

   Description:  A UTF-8 [RFC3629] encoded Unicode string containing a
      human-readable description of an Information Element.  The content
      of the informationElementDescription MAY be annotated with one or
      more language tags [RFC4646], encoded in-line [RFC2482] within the
      UTF-8 string, in order to specify the language in which the
      description is written.  Description text in multiple languages
      MAY tag each section with its own language tag; in this case, the
      description information in each language SHOULD have equivalent
      meaning.  In the absence of any language tag, the "i-default"
      [RFC2277] language SHOULD be assumed.

      See the Security Considerations section for notes on string
      handling for Information Element type records.

7.4.2.  NEW

   Description:  A UTF-8 [RFC3629] encoded Unicode string containing a
      human-readable description of an Information Element.  The content
      of the informationElementDescription MAY be annotated with one or
      more language tags [RFC4646], encoded in-line [RFC2482] within the
      UTF-8 string, in order to specify the language in which the
      description is written.  Description text in multiple languages
      MAY tag each section with its own language tag; in this case, the
      description information in each language SHOULD have equivalent
      meaning.  In the absence of any language tag, the "i-default"
      [RFC2277] language SHOULD be assumed.

      See Section 4 (Security Considerations) of [RFC5610] for notes on
      string handling for Information Element type records.

7.5.  distinctCountOfDestinationIPAddress

7.5.1.  OLD

   Description:  The count of distinct destination IP address values for
      Original Flows contributing to this Aggregated Flow, without
      regard to IP version.  This Information Element is preferred to
      the version-specific counters below, unless it is important to
      separate the counts by version.

7.5.2.  NEW

   Description:  The count of distinct destination IP address values for
      Original Flows contributing to this Aggregated Flow, without
      regard to IP version.  This Information Element is preferred to
      the version-specific counters, unless it is important to separate
      the counts by version.

7.6.  externalAddressRealm

7.6.1.  OLD

   Description:  This Information Element represents the external
      address realm where the packet is originated from or destined to.
      The detailed definition is in the internal address realm as
      specified above.

7.6.2.  NEW

   Description:  This Information Element represents the external
      address realm where the packet is originated from or destined to.

      See the internalAddressRealm IE for the detailed definition.

8.  Security Considerations

   This document does not add new security considerations to those
   already discussed for IPFIX in Section 8 of [RFC7012].

9.  IANA Considerations

   Sections 4 to 7 include actions for IANA.  These actions are not
   repeated here.  IANA has added a reference to this document for each
   of the entries updated per this document.

   IANA has updated the note in the "IPFIX Information Elements"
   registry under the "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities"
   registry group [IANA-IPFIX] as follows:

   OLD:  The columns previously titled "References" and "Requester" have
      been renamed "Additional Information" and "Reference",
      respectively.

   NEW:  The columns previously titled "References" and "Requester" have
      been renamed "Additional Information" and "Reference",
      respectively.

      The initial values for this registry were provided in [RFC5102].
      [RFC7012] has obsoleted [RFC5102] and specifies that the current
      registry is the normative reference for these Information
      Elements.

   IANA has added this document as a reference for the "IPFIX
   Information Elements" registry within the "IP Flow Information Export
   (IPFIX) Entities" registry group [IANA-IPFIX].

   IANA has also updated references to the "Service Name and Transport
   Protocol Port Number" consistently throughout the registry as
   follows:

   OLD:  Additional information on defined UDP and TCP port numbers can
      be found at http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers.

   NEW:  See the assigned transport protocol (e.g., UDP, TCP, SCTP, and
      DCCP) port numbers [https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-
      names-port-numbers].

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [IANA-IPFIX]
              IANA, "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC7011]  Claise, B., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., and P. Aitken,
              "Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
              Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77,
              RFC 7011, DOI 10.17487/RFC7011, September 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7011>.

   [RFC7012]  Claise, B., Ed. and B. Trammell, Ed., "Information Model
              for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7012, September 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7012>.

   [RFC7013]  Trammell, B. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Authors and
              Reviewers of IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
              Information Elements", BCP 184, RFC 7013,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7013, September 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7013>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [CCO-NF9FMT]
              Cisco, "NetFlow Version 9 Flow-Record Format", May 2011,
              <https://www.cisco.com/en/US/technologies/tk648/tk362/
              technologies_white_paper09186a00800a3db9.html>.

   [RFC768]   Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>.

   [RFC791]   Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.

   [RFC1321]  Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC 1321,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1321, April 1992,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1321>.

   [RFC1631]  Egevang, K. and P. Francis, "The IP Network Address
              Translator (NAT)", RFC 1631, DOI 10.17487/RFC1631, May
              1994, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1631>.

   [RFC2277]  Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and
              Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, DOI 10.17487/RFC2277,
              January 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2277>.

   [RFC2482]  Whistler, K. and G. Adams, "Language Tagging in Unicode
              Plain Text", RFC 2482, DOI 10.17487/RFC2482, January 1999,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2482>.

   [RFC3022]  Srisuresh, P. and K. Egevang, "Traditional IP Network
              Address Translator (Traditional NAT)", RFC 3022,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3022, January 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3022>.

   [RFC3031]  Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
              Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.

   [RFC3234]  Carpenter, B. and S. Brim, "Middleboxes: Taxonomy and
              Issues", RFC 3234, DOI 10.17487/RFC3234, February 2002,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3234>.

   [RFC3629]  Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
              10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November
              2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>.

   [RFC4340]  Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram
              Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4340, March 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4340>.

   [RFC4646]  Phillips, A. and M. Davis, "Tags for Identifying
              Languages", RFC 4646, DOI 10.17487/RFC4646, September
              2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4646>.

   [RFC5102]  Quittek, J., Bryant, S., Claise, B., Aitken, P., and J.
              Meyer, "Information Model for IP Flow Information Export",
              RFC 5102, DOI 10.17487/RFC5102, January 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5102>.

   [RFC5103]  Trammell, B. and E. Boschi, "Bidirectional Flow Export
              Using IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 5103,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5103, January 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5103>.

   [RFC5475]  Zseby, T., Molina, M., Duffield, N., Niccolini, S., and F.
              Raspall, "Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet
              Selection", RFC 5475, DOI 10.17487/RFC5475, March 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5475>.

   [RFC5477]  Dietz, T., Claise, B., Aitken, P., Dressler, F., and G.
              Carle, "Information Model for Packet Sampling Exports",
              RFC 5477, DOI 10.17487/RFC5477, March 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5477>.

   [RFC5610]  Boschi, E., Trammell, B., Mark, L., and T. Zseby,
              "Exporting Type Information for IP Flow Information Export
              (IPFIX) Information Elements", RFC 5610,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5610, July 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5610>.

   [RFC5655]  Trammell, B., Boschi, E., Mark, L., Zseby, T., and A.
              Wagner, "Specification of the IP Flow Information Export
              (IPFIX) File Format", RFC 5655, DOI 10.17487/RFC5655,
              October 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5655>.

   [RFC6144]  Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for
              IPv4/IPv6 Translation", RFC 6144, DOI 10.17487/RFC6144,
              April 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6144>.

   [RFC6146]  Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
              NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
              Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146,
              April 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6146>.

   [RFC6235]  Boschi, E. and B. Trammell, "IP Flow Anonymization
              Support", RFC 6235, DOI 10.17487/RFC6235, May 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6235>.

   [RFC6296]  Wasserman, M. and F. Baker, "IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix
              Translation", RFC 6296, DOI 10.17487/RFC6296, June 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6296>.

   [RFC6313]  Claise, B., Dhandapani, G., Aitken, P., and S. Yates,
              "Export of Structured Data in IP Flow Information Export
              (IPFIX)", RFC 6313, DOI 10.17487/RFC6313, July 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6313>.

   [RFC6759]  Claise, B., Aitken, P., and N. Ben-Dvora, "Cisco Systems
              Export of Application Information in IP Flow Information
              Export (IPFIX)", RFC 6759, DOI 10.17487/RFC6759, November
              2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6759>.

   [RFC7014]  D'Antonio, S., Zseby, T., Henke, C., and L. Peluso, "Flow
              Selection Techniques", RFC 7014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7014,
              September 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7014>.

   [RFC7015]  Trammell, B., Wagner, A., and B. Claise, "Flow Aggregation
              for the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol",
              RFC 7015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7015, September 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7015>.

   [RFC7125]  Trammell, B. and P. Aitken, "Revision of the
              tcpControlBits IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
              Information Element", RFC 7125, DOI 10.17487/RFC7125,
              February 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7125>.

   [RFC7133]  Kashima, S., Kobayashi, A., Ed., and P. Aitken,
              "Information Elements for Data Link Layer Traffic
              Measurement", RFC 7133, DOI 10.17487/RFC7133, May 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7133>.

   [RFC7270]  Yourtchenko, A., Aitken, P., and B. Claise, "Cisco-
              Specific Information Elements Reused in IP Flow
              Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7270,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7270, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7270>.

   [RFC8038]  Aitken, P., Ed., Claise, B., S, S. B., McDowall, C., and
              J. Schoenwaelder, "Exporting MIB Variables Using the IP
              Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol", RFC 8038,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8038, May 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8038>.

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

   [RFC8158]  Sivakumar, S. and R. Penno, "IP Flow Information Export
              (IPFIX) Information Elements for Logging NAT Events",
              RFC 8158, DOI 10.17487/RFC8158, December 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8158>.

   [RFC8200]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.

   [RFC9260]  Stewart, R., Tüxen, M., and K. Nielsen, "Stream Control
              Transmission Protocol", RFC 9260, DOI 10.17487/RFC9260,
              June 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9260>.

   [RFC9293]  Eddy, W., Ed., "Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)",
              STD 7, RFC 9293, DOI 10.17487/RFC9293, August 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9293>.

   [RFC9487]  Graf, T., Claise, B., and P. Francois, "Export of Segment
              Routing over IPv6 Information in IP Flow Information
              Export (IPFIX)", RFC 9487, DOI 10.17487/RFC9487, November
              2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9487>.

   [RFC9565]  Boucadair, M., "An Update to the tcpControlBits IP Flow
              Information Export (IPFIX) Information Element", RFC 9565,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9565, March 2024,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9565>.

Acknowledgments

   Many thanks to Paul Aitken for the review and many suggestions that
   enhanced this specification.  Special thanks to Andrew Feren for
   sharing data about scans of IPFIX data he collected.

   Thomas Graf tagged an issue with the forwardingStatus Information
   Element and for the Shepherd review.

   Thanks to Éric Vyncke for the review and comments.

   Thanks to Qin Wu for the opsdir review, Behcet Sarikaya for the
   genart review, Martin Duke for the tsvart review, Donald Eastlake for
   the intdir review, and Hilarie Orman for the secdir review.

   Thanks to Mahesh Jethanandani for the AD review.

   Thanks to Éric Vyncke for the IESG review.

Authors' Addresses

   Mohamed Boucadair
   Orange
   Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com


   Benoit Claise
   Huawei
   Email: benoit.claise@huawei.com
