Le 9 sept. 2010 à 23:51, Brian E Carpenter a écrit : > Rémi, > > This is quite similar to one possible version of > draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-04 that is spinning > around on my hard disk. But I really want to get clarity > (if not rough consensus) on the immutability thread before > being certain what we should propose.
It certainly makes sense before issuing the new version. The idea is to try and identify clearly which consensus we talk about. For this, a succinct expression of what we plan to get at the end, like the proposed R1 to R7, is intended to be helpful. BTW, would you be personally satisfied if R1-R7 would reflect the final consensus? > I think the rules about tunnels should be completely separate, > and they are really the subject of the other draft, > draft-carpenter-flow-ecmp-02. Having all the FL information in one draft is IMHO more reader friendly, but I have no serious objection to the 2-draft approach that you seem to prefer. RD > On 2010-09-10 00:09, Rémi Després wrote: >> ... >> >> The best combination I personally get, considering past discussions on a >> potential RFC-3697 revision, is so far as follows: >> >> R1. Packet sources SHOULD set FLs to non-zero values that generally differ >> from a flow to another (e.g. with currently specified stateful algorithms, >> or with n-tuple hashes). >> >> R2. Packet sources MUST set FLs to zero otherwise. >> >> R3. Intermediate nodes MAY replace null FL values by non-zero FL values, >> PROVIDED these non-zero values generally differ from a flow to another. >> >> R4. Intermediate nodes MAY replace non-zero FL values by non-zero FL values, >> PROVIDED these non-zero values generally differ from a flow to another. >> >> R5. Intermediate nodes MAY replace non-zero FL values by null values ONLY IF >> found necessary for some identified policy-dependent security reason (e.g. >> in some managed firewalls). >> >> R6. Nodes that tunnel flow aggregates SHOULD replicate non-zero FLs of >> encapsulated packets in encapsulating packets. >> >> R7. Nodes that tunnel flow aggregates SHOULD set FLs of encapsulating >> packets that contain null FLs to a value that characterize the tunnel >> itself, and MUST set it to 0 otherwise. >> >> NOTE: Since most packets of a fragmented TCP datagram don't contain ports >> that identify the 5-tuple of their flow, computing new non-zero FL values >> implies operation at the datagram layer. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
