A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IP Version 6 Working Group Working Group of the IETF.
Title : IPv6 Flow Label Specification
Author(s) : J. Rajahalme, A. Conta, B. Carpenter, S.
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hi Brian,
[BC] Probably, but near the source or destination this is not necessarily
true. In a non-diffserv, non-intserv scenario, using the triplet
{source, dest, flow label} to split the traffic could be interesting.
And, how do load balancing routers
Jarno answered this one I think, but my point is that *they don't need to
know*. They just behave the same way in all cases, and the traffic that
doesn't carry fine-grain flow labels will just not get load balanced.
The problem is that the traffic that doesn't carry fine-grain flow labels
will
All,
What happened to the proposal to partition the label space to clearly
and formally delineate the different possible uses?
Surely this would elminate any possible ambiguous and/or conflicting use.
Regards
Keith Knightson
Keith Knightson wrote:
All,
What happened to the proposal to partition the label space to clearly
and formally delineate the different possible uses?
Surely this would elminate any possible ambiguous and/or conflicting use.
There was no consensus to go that way. So we looked for a more
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Jarno answered this one I think, but my point is that *they don't need to
know*. They just behave the same way in all cases, and the traffic that
doesn't carry fine-grain flow labels will just not get load balanced.
The problem is that the traffic that doesn't
Margaret Wasserman writes:
Jarno answered this one I think, but my point is that *they don't need to
know*. They just behave the same way in all cases, and the traffic that
doesn't carry fine-grain flow labels will just not get load balanced.
The problem is that the traffic that
Good news. The IESG discussion of this document raised no major
issues. One point that was discussed, however, was related to whether
:: means 1 or more occurances of zero vs. 2 or more, when used in
an IPv6 literal address. The document currently says:
2. Due to some methods of allocating
Maybe I'm in left field here, but I thought that a
transmitter who didn't mark packets' flow label
was supposed to set it to zero. In that case, the
router could conceivably resort to classifying packets
the old fashioned way -- eg transport headers.
The problem is that the current
Margaret Wasserman writes:
Maybe I'm in left field here, but I thought that a
transmitter who didn't mark packets' flow label
was supposed to set it to zero. In that case, the
router could conceivably resort to classifying packets
the old fashioned way -- eg transport headers.
Michael Thomas wrote:
... snip
What doesn't work is if there may be non-zero values in
the flow label that actually don't label flows. How is a
load-balancing or load-spreading router supposed to know
that this isn't a flow label?
Er, well, it _doesn't_. I guess I just don't
In your previous mail you wrote:
One point that was discussed, however, was related to whether
:: means 1 or more occurances of zero vs. 2 or more, when used in
an IPv6 literal address.
= I always interpreted this as one or more (i.e., the standard +).
I.e., on one parser an
If
you want to talk DiffServ, IntServ, or something of that flavor, the
flow label would be signaled, the router would recognize it during
packet classification and deal with it how it sees fit.
So, all of the routers would have to participate in signalling to
know whether the flow label was
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
If
you want to talk DiffServ, IntServ, or something of that flavor, the
flow label would be signaled, the router would recognize it during
packet classification and deal with it how it sees fit.
So, all of the routers would have to participate in signalling to
To resolve this issue, I propose the following text for section 2.2
(changed line indicated by | ):
2. Due to some methods of allocating certain styles of IPv6
addresses, it will be common for addresses to contain long strings
of zero bits. In order to make writing addresses
I think that the problem is that we have different ideas about
what the purpose of this document is.
I, personally, would like to see a document that defines how hosts
should set the flow label, in the absence of knowledge to the
contrary. Something like:
- Start with a random number
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
I think that the problem is that we have different ideas
about what the purpose of this document is.
I, personally, would like to see a document that defines how
hosts should set the flow label, in the absence of knowledge
to the contrary. Something like:
Joe and all assembly members other interested parties,
Thanks Joe for passing this interesting and very accurate article.
It is good that also Jim FLemings IPv8 got a little well deserved
attention as well. Kudos to Jim there!
Indeed the security and privacy problems with IPv6 despite
On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Jeff Williams wrote:
Joe and all assembly members other interested parties,
Thanks Joe for passing this interesting and very accurate article.
Hmm..
It is good that also Jim FLemings IPv8 got a little well deserved
attention as well. Kudos to Jim there!
You
19 matches
Mail list logo
