> For whom is this Flow Label update intended? 1. For all the people who have proposed use cases that are incompatible with RFC 3697. This is briefly discussed in the draft, and I plan another draft with more details about that.
2. To "unlock" the uses cases already proposed that are compatible with RFC 3697 (draft-blake-ipv6-flow-label-nonce, ECMP, and LAG). I haven't tracked MEXT at all. If they want to place requirements on the flow label, now would be a good time for them to tell 6man. Regards Brian On 2010-04-15 05:41, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > I take advantage of my slot here to also talk about the fact that I > believe Flow Labels and IPv6 Flows in general are little known in MEXT. > > For example the MEXT WG defines an "IPv6 flow" to be a "group of packets > matching a traffic selector", different than the rfc3697 idea of > "3-tuple of the Flow Label and the Source and Destination Address fields > enables efficient IPv6 flow classification". > > MEXT's draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding-06 goes further and defines "A flow > identifier uniquely identifies a flow binding associated with a mobile > node. It is generated by a mobile node and is cached in the table of > flow binding entries maintained by the MN, HA, CN or MAP.". > > No MEXT mentioning of "Flow Label", but the same spirit - because a flow > binding is actually a pair of addresses to which one adds an 16bit (not > 20) id. > > MEXT Mobile IPv6 using the _spirit_ of IPv6 flows (3-tuple > address-address-id), and the term "flow" but _not_ the IPv6 Flow Label > field was very surprising to me at the time of proposal. > > Now I am surprised 6MAN proposes to modify the IPv6 Flow Label - what > does this mean to MEXT Mobile IPv6? Is 6MAN proposing new Flow Label > behaviour in order to be better in MEXT (doesn't seem so, mutability > wasn't requested in MEXT)? Or just ROLL? > > For whom is this Flow Label update intended? > > Alex > > Le 14/04/2010 19:21, Alexandru Petrescu a écrit : >> Hi, I came across this draft coming from the ROLL space where a >> proposal exists to use the Flow Label changed enroute maybe. >> >> Besides the fact that I find ROLL use of such spec of 6MAN not being >> ready, i.e. in its infance (I will suggest that to the ROLL WG), I >> have a general comment here in 6MAN. >> >> Modifying a field of an IP packet "en-route" is something which >> comes with a price tag: obviously slower. Generally speaking writing >> takes much longer than reading. >> >> I find this proposal to change the Flow Label behaviour to come in >> too early, at a point where we don't yet have widespread use of >> simple Flow Labels (or is it widely used?). >> >> I wouldn't touch on any IP field enroute... there exist already >> exceptions allowing to touch enroute and they're not widely used >> either (RH, HbH, etc.) >> >> Alex >> >> Le 18/02/2010 04:34, Brian E Carpenter a écrit : >>> Hi, >>> >>> This may seem a bit unexpected, but after working on >>> draft-carpenter-flow-ecmp (just updated) and working with my >>> student Qinwen Hu on some aspects of the flow label, it seemed like >>> time for another look at the flow label standard, and Sheng Jiang >>> was having similar thoughts. >>> >>> We'd like to discuss this in Anaheim if possible. >>> >>> Brian >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: I-D >>> Action:draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-00.txt Date: Wed, 17 Feb >>> 2010 18:15:02 -0800 (PST) From: internet-dra...@ietf.org Reply-To: >>> internet-dra...@ietf.org To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org >>> >>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >>> directories. >>> >>> Title : Update to the IPv6 flow label specification Author(s) : B. >>> Carpenter, S. Jiang Filename : >>> draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-00.txt Pages : 9 Date : >>> 2010-02-17 >>> >>> Various uses proposed for the IPv6 flow label are incompatible >>> with its existing specification. This document describes changes to >>> the specification that permit additional use cases as well as >>> allowing continued use of the previous specification. >>> >>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >>> >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-00.txt >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative >>> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative >> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
