Hi Aleksi, Is it right to understand from your comments that you accept the proposed combination (mutable if and only if 0; stateless hash or stateful random number where it is set)? RD
Le 4 août 2010 à 00:25, Aleksi Suhonen a écrit : > Hi, > >> On Aug 3, 2010, at 02:53 MDT, Rémi Després wrote: >>> What about this combination (not documented yet, it seems) >>> - Hosts that send non 0 FLs, MUST do it with a value that: >>> . is common to all packets of their flow >>> . generally is different from one flow to another >>> - non 0 FLs MUST be preserved e2e. >>> - 0 FLs may be changed anywhere, but with the same constraints as in hosts. > > Earlier I suggested that a modified "0 FL" should be reset back to zero at > the egress of the network that modified it. Someone said this is impossible, > which I don't believe at all. However, all I really care about is that "0 FL" > should be mutable and others shouldn't. Whether it is or should be reset on > egress doesn't matter to me. > >>> In addition, >>> - A flow is specified by its 5-tuple, if it exists, or its 3-tuple >>> otherwise. >>> - The FL value assigned to a flow MAY be EITHER: >>> . a hash of the flow identification (simple because stateless), OR >>> . a pseudo random number (more complex because stateful, but providing an >>> utmost privacy protection >>> The choice between hash or randomness is made where the FL is set. Other >>> nodes don't need to know what has been chosen. > > On 08/03/10 17:20, Shane Amante wrote: >> Because of your last two bullets I have to ask the following. How would a >> receiving host deterministically distinguish (1) flow-labels that were >> created by network devices (just a 5-tuple was put into a flow-label) vs. >> (2) flow-labels that were created by a source-host w/ a pseudo-random number >> + 5-tuple[1]? (Please read on before answering :-) > > Why does a receiving host care about the flow label at all? It exists to make > sure that all intermediate nodes give correct treatment to the flow, but once > it reaches its destination it's "safe", right? > > What have I missed? > > -- > Aleksi Suhonen > Department of Communications Engineering > Tampere University of Technology -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
