Le 28 oct. 2010 à 07:18, Suresh Krishnan a écrit :

>>>> ...
>>> I doubt that any new use of the flow label will be backward compatible. Do 
>>> you have any text about this proposal that I can read up on?
>> In my understanding:
>> - draft-carpenter-flow-ecmp-03 details a promising particular use of 20-bit 
>> FLs that wasn't detailed before (Flow Label for tunnel ECMP/LAG)
>> - it can work with the current rules about flow-label settings, but too few 
>> hosts, if any, set FLs to non-zero values today
>> - this is, at least in part, due to the fact that these rules are more 
>> complex that needed: stateful processing is required, or "seems" to be 
>> required (there is a debate), while algorithmic hashes would be easier to 
>> implement in hosts and sufficient for load balancing purposes. - 
>> draft-zhou-softwire-ds-lite-p2p-02 describes a new use of 20-bit FLs 
>> (Deployment DS-lite in Point-to-Point Access Network)
>> - it remains backward compatible with current rules because it is only 
>> between point-to-point tunnel endpoints, i.e. without relationship with host 
>> FL settings.
>> If one of these proposals would fail with hosts that support current rules 
>> for FL settings, it couldn't be claimed that they are backward compatible, 
>> but I have personally identified no such incompatibility.
> 
> The proposals need consenting hosts on both ends to be useful, don't they?

They don't!
(Load balancing is a one-way function. If a host sets FLs, its flows to all 
destinations can be load balanced with ecmp, independently of what other ends 
do.)

>> ....
> 
> My point was, if we need to change the nodes at both ends to implement a new 
> use of the flow label, the backward compatibility argument is moot.

Right "if we need to change the nodes at both ends", but we don't.


Regards,
RD


> Thanks
> Suresh
> 


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to