Shane and all,
>
> What causes pain and/or worry to us operators is when someone launches a
> large *individual* "macro-flow"[1] at the network that start to represent
> a decent fraction of the overall capacity of a physical component-link
> underlying a LAG and/or ECMP path, (e.g.: and the f
> >
> >
> > [LY] Statistical approach works well under the consumption that there
> are
> > thousands of flows and they have the similar rates. Today's Internet may
> > have the flows that only have few packets and the flows that have
> thousands
> > packets per second and last long. Hash does not
>
> If you want to
> > tell me "oh, I take the modulus of the flow label with the
> > number of servers I have to select which server", or any
> > similar stateless algorithm, I can do it with that hash just
> > as easily. And yes, that gives me a session predictably going
> > to the same server.
> >>
> >> RFC 3697 defines it as:
> >>
> >> A flow is a sequence of packets sent from a particular source to a
> >> particular unicast, anycast, or multicast destination that the source
> >> desires to label as a flow. A flow could consist of all packets in a
> >> specific tran
What is flow label usage?
IMO: it enforces that a set of packets with the same flow label has to be
carried through the networks in the same path or belong to the same
application at host. Is that correct? Is there other usage of flow label?
Regards,
Lucy
-
Hello The Community,
We submit this draft (below) to propose large flow classification in IPv6.
This classification can enable differentiated flow-based-routing over ECMP,
which can improve the load balance.
Look forward to talking this subject with the group in Maastricht.
Regards,
Lucy
--
snipped
> > Text:
> >
> > It might be possible to make this classifier stateless, by using a
> >
> > suitable modulo(N) hash of the inner IP header's 5-tuple as the
> >
> > pseudo-random value.
> >
> >
> >
> > The document text uses N in referring N paths. It causes a confusion in
> >
Brian and Shane,
I read the draft. It is well written.
Here are some comments:
Text:
o At intermediate router(s) that perform ECMP or LAG for packets
whose source address is a TEP, the hash SHOULD minimally include
the triple {dest addr, source addr, flow label} to
Brian and Shane,
I read the draft. It is well written. Here are some comments:
Text:
o At intermediate router(s) that perform ECMP or LAG for packets
whose source address is a TEP, the hash SHOULD minimally include
the triple {dest addr, source addr, flow label} to meet
