Le 14/04/2010 23:51, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
Alexandru,
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?).
But that's the problem. If you have read the -02 draft, you will
understand that flow label usage today is essentially non-existent.
Ok, it is draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-02 and I will comment on it
separately.
Usage is not going to occur unless we make it desirable - and it's
quite clear that RFC 3697 did not succeed in making it desirable. So
either we do something, or we continue to carry 20 useless bits in
every IPv6 packet.
I mainly agree to make Flow Labels desirable. Towards that end one
would consider two other cases where Flow Labels were considered:
- MEXT' WG draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding-06 "Flow Bindings in Mobile
IPv6 and NEMO Basic Support";
- ROLL WG's intention of use of Flow Labels in RPL
protocol draft-ietf-roll-rpl-07.
Currently their way of considering flows and Flow Labels respectively is
incoherent with old Flow Labels - and with new Flow Labels too. Or
probably are they about to get in synch(?).
Why has MEXT WG defined a new flow id instead of reusing the IPv6 Flow
Label? Is it because of security? The new 6MAN Flow Labels don't
improve on security, they're still uncovered by IPsec.
Why has ROLL WG looked at mutable Flow Labels? Is it to change it
enroute and restore it when getting out of the flow label domain? The
new flow labels don't seem to impose the restoration, in my reading.
Are the new Flow Labels better adapted to MEXT and to ROLL?
Alex
Please forget the -00 and -01 drafts, they were completely overtaken
by the discussion at IETF77.
Regards Brian
On 2010-04-15 05:21, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
