On 2010-04-21 19:11, Philip Homburg wrote:
> In your letter dated Wed, 21 Apr 2010 16:33:03 +1200 you wrote:
>> By contrast, a source host
>> never has this problem, because it knows by construction when a flow
>> ends (chances are, flow == socket).
>
> I'm wondering about the 'never' part. What i
In your letter dated Wed, 21 Apr 2010 16:33:03 +1200 you wrote:
>By contrast, a source host
>never has this problem, because it knows by construction when a flow
>ends (chances are, flow == socket).
I'm wondering about the 'never' part. What if an application uses sendto()
to communicate over UDP
Mark,
I was hoping someone else might chime in, but since they didn't, let
me extract from your messages:
> So those [IPFIX] timeouts are more to do with emission of flow records, and
> flow cache maintenance, rather than being a more general definition of
> what a flow is
Certainly. But supposi
Hi Brian,
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:50:28 +1200
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> > Are you generally trying to avoid it because it would appear to be an
> > implied IETF definition of a flow, rather than just the IPv6
> > definition? Or is it to avoid having to start defining the a possibly
Hi Mark,
> Are you generally trying to avoid it because it would appear to be an
> implied IETF definition of a flow, rather than just the IPv6
> definition? Or is it to avoid having to start defining the a possibly
> large set of flow definitions?
Actually, because I have enough email to deal wi
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 08:34:40 -0600
Shane Amante wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Apr 15, 2010, at 04:36 MDT, Mark Smith wrote:
> > Hi Brian, Shane,
> >
> > On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:52:15 +1200
> > Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Brian Carpenter
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 201
Le 14 avr. 2010 à 23:59, Mark Smith a écrit :
> Hi Brian and Sheng,
>
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 16:48:25 +1200
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This is completely revised from the proposal we presented
>> in Anaheim. This version allows locally defined use of
>> the flow label in a simpl
Hi Mark,
On Apr 15, 2010, at 04:36 MDT, Mark Smith wrote:
> Hi Brian, Shane,
>
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:52:15 +1200
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>>
>> Regards
>> Brian Carpenter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2010-04-15 14:10, Shane Amante wrote:
>>> Brian, Mark,
>>>
>>> Brian: FWIW, I like the dire
On Apr 15, 2010, at 05:52, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> the flow-label MUST or, at
>> least, SHOULD be reset to 0 upon /leaving/ that domain,
>> otherwise the next domain may (or, will?) misinterpret the
>> meaning of the incoming "locally-defined" flow-label. The
>
> I'm personally quite attract
Hi Brian, Shane,
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:52:15 +1200
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> Regards
>Brian Carpenter
>
>
>
>
> On 2010-04-15 14:10, Shane Amante wrote:
> > Brian, Mark,
> >
> > Brian: FWIW, I like the direction of this version of draft
> > much better than previous versions; howev
Hi Brian,
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 10:13:04 +1200
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On 2010-04-15 09:59, Mark Smith wrote:
> > Hi Brian and Sheng,
> >
> > On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 16:48:25 +1200
> > Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >
> > I suppose partly that comes down to what a
-Original Message-
>> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 5:59 AM
>> To: Rémi Després
>> Cc: Sheng Jiang; 6man
>> Subject: Re: [Fwd: New Version Notification for
>> draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-02]
>>
heers,
Sheng
> -Original Message-
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 5:59 AM
> To: Rémi Després
> Cc: Sheng Jiang; 6man
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: New Version Notification for
> draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-02]
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 2010-04-15 14:10, Shane Amante wrote:
> Brian, Mark,
>
> Brian: FWIW, I like the direction of this version of draft
> much better than previous versions; however, I agree with
> Remi that the current version is a bit confusing at the
> moment and could likely be
Brian, Mark,
Brian: FWIW, I like the direction of this version of draft much better than
previous versions; however, I agree with Remi that the current version is a bit
confusing at the moment and could likely be rewritten to be more simple and
just obsolete RFC 3967. In addition, I'm still a
Hi Mark,
On 2010-04-15 09:59, Mark Smith wrote:
> Hi Brian and Sheng,
>
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 16:48:25 +1200
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This is completely revised from the proposal we presented
>> in Anaheim. This version allows locally defined use of
>> the flow label in a simpl
Hi Brian and Sheng,
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 16:48:25 +1200
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is completely revised from the proposal we presented
> in Anaheim. This version allows locally defined use of
> the flow label in a simpler way, as the discussion suggested.
> It's still quite a dense
Rémi,
Thanks for the analysis. Indeed, the conclusion may be, assuming
the WG is interested at all, that a complete refresh of RFC 3697
is better than publishing a delta.
I agree that it is a bit complicated to explain, although the
underlying concept is quite clear: allow local use of the
flow l
Brian, Sheng,
I carefully read the draft, and read again RFC 3697 and
draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-02.
The draft is IMHO overly hard to understand but, unless I misunderstand its
intent (which is quite possible), I appreciate what it proposes.
I do support the intent, but feel uncomfortable
Hi,
This is completely revised from the proposal we presented
in Anaheim. This version allows locally defined use of
the flow label in a simpler way, as the discussion suggested.
It's still quite a dense read, but we believe that if this was
adopted, it would open the way to actually using the flo
20 matches
Mail list logo
