-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

>>>>> "Brian" == Brian E Carpenter <Brian> writes:
    >> With
    >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-rpl-07#section-7.2 I
    >> tried to stay within the lines of RFC 3697 as you also defend in
    >> your mail.
    >> 
    >> I think the question we have now is not whether that proposal is
    >> lawful but whether the new law being defined at 6MAN would
    >> prevent it in the future.  If the updated rules allow, then I'll
    >> be glad to work on an FL-based alternate to the IPinIP/HbH.

    Brian> So I understand that ROLL would definitely need the ability
    Brian> to define explicit semantics on the label. Would it also need
    Brian> the label to be mutable?

The only case where there is a problem is when there is a packet that
arrives from the outside, to a ROLL "border router" (we don't have such
a term in ROLL. The ROLL term would be grounded DODAG root).

The problem would be if:
    a) the flow label was non-zero.
    b) the flow label named a RPLinstanceID which did exist.
    c) the originating IP was not permitted to use that instanceID
    d) yet we wanted traffic to continue.

In that case, we have a problem and we might want to set the flow-label
to zero.  I think this situation is simply illegal, and I think the
culprit is part (d).

As I indicated in a previous message, the above could happen when there
were two ROLL networks connected together by the "internet" (lower-case
I intentional, this doesn't have to be the public Internet, but it does
have to cross administrative boundaries of some kind), and one needed
flow-label A to exit network 1, and flow-label B to enter network 2.

("needed" --- only that flow label would name the right RPLinstance,
which had the correct set of routing constraints)

    >> It appeared at the 6MAN WG meeting that 12 bits mutable was
    >> exactly what the core network was asking for to do its load
    >> balancing.  A first question to the group could be whether 12
    >> mutable bits are enough for the sensible usages envisioned so
    >> far?

    Brian> To me it seems that 12 bits could contain enough randomness
    Brian> to drive a load balancing mechanism, but there's no need for
    Brian> those bits to be mutable that I can see. On the other hand,
    Brian> 12 bits seems very small for any kind of nonce or for a flow
    Brian> identification scheme, so it seems that draft-blake and
    Brian> draft-donley would be knocked out.

ROLL is sees the label/RPLinstanceID as being an opaque number with no
specific properties.  We actually punt to the administrator to even
define/configure it.

I doubt that many ROLL networks will have as many as 2^8 instances, let
alone 2^12 instances.  The rational for lots of bits would be to
encourage random allocation such that in the event that two
uncoordinated ROLL networks happened to merge (even for a few
minutes!!!) that the likelyhood of cross talk would be reduced.

A merge like I describe here is not directly envisaged by the current
set of requirements in my opinion, but I think that requirement will
emerge in the future.

- -- 
]       He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life!           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] m...@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
   Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
                       then sign the petition. 





-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Finger me for keys

iQEVAwUBTGFMmoCLcPvd0N1lAQJz7gf/Uaa3xF+O9u5AeUxOrg/s3ehvb0z2AyTo
/OWqRH+yYnsgJV79KintI25Hv6upIWdGDECxQzv1nSNaXEyQl76s/y7NQkjGB9Uy
3e1RXbFdY54fRj0ElsQw5PbieYqNo0in28bcbWYkfZdqALi7HXSlBHHmoADlB4hh
tvR6qFJJfIw3L4bYCtSoD75NLEzrZXrSBTdFsH/KDdiUUYQVM214+mRS9V1ymXwK
Jn+uIpEvyD+fK4iAyDG29lSAONrF4HaS+LmLRJI98lwHgMejiaxvkRAI6sQCHaQ8
tBW2o475fbVr++di19BmOEf7ohPEHmN5La6M2hxfMq8G6r2gZK/gJg==
=yMdQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to