>>>>> "Fred" == Fred Baker <f...@cisco.com> writes: Fred> I would find that surprising. There are ample cases where the Fred> originator of a high data rate flow (sensor data from a radio Fred> telescope to a number cruncher, to pick one example) might Fred> want to use the flow label to send data from one session down Fred> multiple paths. Multi-path TCP would be another example. I Fred> suppose you could argue that consistently alternating among N Fred> flow labels can be thought of as N separate flows, but if it's Fred> TCP there are other ramifications.
I did write: >> points) were mandated that they must now always set a FL consistently on >> a flow, and set it to a non-zero value, that this would satisfy the >> requirements of load balancers. I don't mean to say that the FL has to be a single value: I guess it could be from a set of values if one wants to do multi-path. Fred> In any event, the requirement of the load balancer is not that Fred> the originator gives things a tag; we can develop such tags Fred> from a hash of the source and destination address quite well, Fred> thanks. The important thing is that things are tagged in a Well... if FL is unique per sender's concept of flow, that's 128+20 bits for the tcam vs 256+8+32 bits if you use the 5-tuple. (why use a tcam for this... I don't know... there are no wildcard bits. A cam or patricia-tree would be as good...) Fred> manner that helps the load balancer. There are two major uses Fred> of load balancers. In data centers, we balance sessions Fred> to/from sets of servers, and the question when a new session Fred> comes up is which server is most likely to be able to Fred> effectively serve it (has the necessary resources including Fred> access to the right disks, CPU cycles, etc). In bandwidth Fred> allocation uses (spreading load across multiple Fred> otherwise-equivalent paths), the question is how to use each Fred> of the paths most effectively - we want some traffic on each Fred> of them and we want none of the paths to be overloaded or Fred> introducing more delay or loss than others. Everyone's Fred> instinctive knee-jerk response to the question seems to be Fred> "hash something and depend on the law of large numbers to Fred> serve the need", and the observation of numerous operators is Fred> that the law of large numbers is a good start but is not an Fred> adequate solution. You really want the load balancer to be Fred> able to be smarter than that. Fred> Which is why people that build load balancers frequently do so Fred> using NAT technology or some other way of tagging individual Fred> sessions. And why they are looking for mutable flow labels in Fred> this thread. So, they want to mutate all flow labels, or just non-zero ones? >>>>>>> "Rémi" == Rémi Després <remi.desp...@free.fr> writes: > Rémi> RFC 3697 isn't concerned with ASes, and doesn't need to be. > Rémi> The proposal is only that, where load balancing is performed, > Rémi> 0 FLs MAY be replaced by meaningful values for this purpose. > Rémi> A FL, once set to a non 0 value, never needs to be reset. mcr> okay, so what you are saying is that load balancing uses of the FL are mcr> only upset when they see zero. So for instance, if layer-4s (i.e. end mcr> points) were mandated that they must now always set a FL consistently on mcr> a flow, and set it to a non-zero value, that this would satisfy the mcr> requirements of load balancers. mcr> mcr> In this context, permission would be given to set zero FL to a non-zero mcr> value. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------