On 6 aug 2009, at 19:00, Noel Chiappa wrote:
I see no particular issue with a network where some LAG-aware routers
do include the flow label in the hash and others don't.
Any time you have a network which is using hop-by-hop path selection
(i.e.
each node makes an independent decision on
On 5 aug 2009, at 16:16, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
What I am asking is whether IPv6 routers containing that silicon
exist in real-world deployments in large enough numbers that they
should be considered in our design choices.
The real question is how many of these routers use parallel
On 5 aug 2009, at 19:34, Christopher Morrow wrote:
You may see 2-3 year cycle on new asics for this feature to appear...
given 1-2 years for haggling/bugs/blah it's safe to say 3-5 yrs before
hardware is on the shelf to purchase.
You assume this requires new hardware. Although that's not
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 5:52 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnumiljit...@muada.com wrote:
On 5 aug 2009, at 19:34, Christopher Morrow wrote:
You may see 2-3 year cycle on new asics for this feature to appear...
given 1-2 years for haggling/bugs/blah it's safe to say 3-5 yrs before
hardware is on the
In your previous mail you wrote:
And I understand that current load balancers can only do this based
on a few fields:
src/dest IP addresses (two RLOCs), the IP traffic class, the IP
protocol field (UDP=17) and the src/dest UDP ports ( and LISP=4341).
I just don't see how
Francis,
On Aug 7, 2009, at 09:24 MDT, Francis Dupont wrote:
In your previous mail you wrote:
And I understand that current load balancers can only do this based
on a few fields:
src/dest IP addresses (two RLOCs), the IP traffic class, the IP
protocol field (UDP=17) and the src/dest
Hi Margaret,
Apologies for the delay, but it took some time to follow-up with some
vendors. See below.
On Aug 5, 2009, at 12:33 MDT, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hi Shane,
On Aug 5, 2009, at 12:50 PM, Shane Amante wrote:
To bring this back up a level, while it's /possible/ to encourage
Shane, thanks for infusing this discussion with some data.
On 7 aug 2009, at 20:05, Shane Amante wrote:
Therefore, I'll have to revise my original recommendation in the
first bullet above that we only consider UDP with 0 checksums as the
preferred short-term solution when IPv6 is being used
On Aug 7, 2009, at 12:21 MDT, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Shane, thanks for infusing this discussion with some data.
On 7 aug 2009, at 20:05, Shane Amante wrote:
Therefore, I'll have to revise my original recommendation in the
first bullet above that we only consider UDP with 0 checksums as
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Margaret Wassermanm...@sandstorm.net wrote:
On Aug 5, 2009, at 3:55 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
This I don't recall at all... I think part of my question is we (as a
group) are assuming that the reasons for requiring ipv6 udp checksums
as stated +10 years
From: Francis Dupont francis.dup...@fdupont.fr
the O UDP checksum proposal obsoletes all the today deployed nodes
which check them (so all hosts I know and perhaps a lot of routers too)
OK, so what are the other options for encapsulating a packet in a IPv6
packet?
I'm told by
On Aug 7, 2009, at 2:59 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Margaret
Wassermanm...@sandstorm.net wrote:
On Aug 5, 2009, at 3:55 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
This I don't recall at all... I think part of my question is we
(as a
group) are assuming that the
Not sensible enough.
Dino
On Aug 4, 2009, at 7:58 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
On Jul 30, 2009, at 6:33 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
What I'm saying is that *if* UDP us used, it needs to be used
according to the RFCs that capture the IETF consensus on their
use, or the IETF consensus
On 7 aug 2009, at 21:31, Noel Chiappa wrote:
I'm told by some people that UDP-Lite isn't a standard yet? Or is
it? (It
seems to have a protocol number issued?)
http://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers/protocol-numbers.xhtml
Protocol 136, RFC 3828.
Does UDP-Lite work through NAT
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Marshall Eubankst...@americafree.tv wrote:
On Aug 7, 2009, at 2:59 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Margaret Wassermanm...@sandstorm.net
wrote:
On Aug 5, 2009, at 3:55 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
This I don't recall at all...
CCing the IAB because I think we are reaching a slippery architectural
slope. Hopefully they can help us out.
On 7 aug 2009, at 20:43, Shane Amante wrote:
Therefore, I'll have to revise my original recommendation in the
first bullet above that we only consider UDP with 0 checksums as
the
the O UDP checksum proposal obsoletes all the today deployed nodes
which check them (so all hosts I know and perhaps a lot of routers too)
OK, so what are the other options for encapsulating a packet in a IPv6
packet?
Um, surely, routers are not specified to validate layer-4
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:22 PM, Havard Eidnesh...@uninett.no wrote:
the O UDP checksum proposal obsoletes all the today deployed nodes
which check them (so all hosts I know and perhaps a lot of routers too)
OK, so what are the other options for encapsulating a packet in a IPv6
From: Christopher Morrow christopher.mor...@gmail.com
While a non-lisp node receiving a LISP udp/0 packet dropping it seems
fine to me, a translator dropping a udp/0|null-sum packet instead of
translating it properly or telling the source-system: oops, something
bad
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:13 PM, Noel Chiappaj...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu wrote:
From: Christopher Morrow christopher.mor...@gmail.com
While a non-lisp node receiving a LISP udp/0 packet dropping it seems
fine to me, a translator dropping a udp/0|null-sum packet instead of
20 matches
Mail list logo
