[Detnet] Flow Identification in IPv6

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Sat, 06 March 2021 20:20 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FD2F3A157F; Sat, 6 Mar 2021 12:20:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mIcg2g_SP0bk; Sat, 6 Mar 2021 12:20:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x233.google.com (mail-lj1-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9367E3A157D; Sat, 6 Mar 2021 12:20:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x233.google.com with SMTP id h4so9442310ljl.0; Sat, 06 Mar 2021 12:20:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ytPWsIiqFfLvqYVEDsN/xp2K5jHlq3JhjOVc6gaEzuE=; b=pj4kxoV01xGOsXgQnQITeVvJBYAmodzMdMupclXxV2kZdQhNokkZAVEdZt0ye+kKTT 4/pivuomSWXKKK3jdky+Su9Lv6+3XfcX+VkIVDS85p6rP2JfCIyeQE9ESFs1Fyu6gaUE GMhtBY13pVIWdXmOZsuMbuoRCZz+Aiwe4n09zhS89zeEjZM7YMNzA0ScDC0DQ5dZdYK+ hY4flp2XYuLAY1Vo3DN5OcU+7sobP/6X0xQGMB3ZkxwtOTXfENmnaczxkb7DUi8NP0EC 4pO3dG+jcSkLmA/0XX7nuCfuAuvbd/RW/GYxYDSClt1+DzAEdjS8tmLPRdNC11uktCqK OxNw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ytPWsIiqFfLvqYVEDsN/xp2K5jHlq3JhjOVc6gaEzuE=; b=YWzbsLjHWkV6Vmtzc8/NGdmmgFNn/V2Jo0tK1SO1dBY6s4Hra7SQm3SWefVuYyF6bA gs94tH9f9Zjoo1bL7Af9artvAoz//CwqdyFy3oLaaS9G2giMO1deAc/lZtKTEpY0Z63L QM5ioYzDebBJtInluMmEJcNAUWdRDn0GD+of7TM0iQHatnOKMDhzkY14mHoevir4Ouzl xi8/56A3VFdPgQbph85YXAUTJW1eyer09+32BToclqAX8K3iHSfX6903H0b7GrOp/xAV Sa4DdDIo3QusSf1xnVJPAbfXC70zHxIG6P10uo8lkcsZzfkLzBrFBQIVM3eKX6T8xbXu 4DAA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530jnl6dNGPg08s3pNkInGtS08Q97daBenefxUzkzUvyPgULfMq4 osHz+zH9Pbj2NV0rri8mg9Diu+RgRObNolNwpvGBMmj1UWs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzqi94rwQR5pfcbDNJZtnhaadVLSrJGaIQ6O/+kdF0cDuBfXN1iIaDoSl2IoNoOtnS+Qaa5WRH2e14qO4s7dWo=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9151:: with SMTP id q17mr8951624ljg.107.1615062019826; Sat, 06 Mar 2021 12:20:19 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2021 12:20:09 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmW9XCwSmsrm291GgdRV1UivNzO7m8b1AYWkCDkfDT61jA@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-geng-6man-redundancy-protection-srh@ietf.org
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, DetNet WG <detnet@ietf.org>, Greg Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fb666005bce3edb9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/F0Gr6lmcGfTBLAsALkilRZFdYLs>
Subject: [Detnet] Flow Identification in IPv6
X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG <detnet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/detnet/>
List-Post: <mailto:detnet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2021 20:20:27 -0000

Dear Authors,
thank you for bringing your proposal to the discussion. I agree with your
view that the explicit routing enabled by SRv6 creates an environment where
PREOF can be used. And, as we know, The PREOF may be used in a DetNet
domain to lower packet loss ratio and provide bounded latency.
After reading the draft, I've got a question for you. What do you see as
the difference between the IPv6 Flow Label per RFC 6437 and the Flow
Identification field in the TLV proposed in the draft? Could the IPv6 Flow
Label be used to identify the flow for the PREOF?

Regards,
Greg