[Detnet] 答复: Flow Identification in IPv6

"Yangfan (IP Standard)" <shirley.yangfan@huawei.com> Mon, 08 March 2021 09:38 UTC

Return-Path: <shirley.yangfan@huawei.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 2F2903A28C4; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 01:38:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 2XrbDhmaKefQ; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 01:38:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF47A3A28C3; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 01:38:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fraeml712-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.207]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4DvCmh3wYqz67wJP; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 17:32:36 +0800 (CST)
Received: from nkgeml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.156) by fraeml712-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.61) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 10:38:29 +0100
Received: from nkgeml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.156) by nkgeml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.156) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 17:38:27 +0800
Received: from nkgeml701-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.156]) by nkgeml701-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.156]) with mapi id 15.01.2106.013; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 17:38:27 +0800
From: "Yangfan (IP Standard)" <shirley.yangfan@huawei.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, "draft-geng-6man-redundancy-protection-srh@ietf.org" <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>
Thread-Topic: Flow Identification in IPv6
Thread-Index: AQHXEsYqJXKpi/2re0+2TVz1hyjrnap5pPVA
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 09:38:27 +0000
Message-ID: <3fdc1006788e47e59cfb8dcc03e9bce6@huawei.com>
References: <CA+RyBmW9XCwSmsrm291GgdRV1UivNzO7m8b1AYWkCDkfDT61jA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmW9XCwSmsrm291GgdRV1UivNzO7m8b1AYWkCDkfDT61jA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.243.115]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_3fdc1006788e47e59cfb8dcc03e9bce6huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/FtHm4mGqLHRiZKEM7iAuJX1p4Ec>
Subject: [Detnet] =?utf-8?b?562U5aSNOiBGbG93IElkZW50aWZpY2F0aW9uIGluIElQ?= =?utf-8?q?v6?=
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: Mon, 08 Mar 2021 09:38:35 -0000

Hi Greg,

Literally speaking, IPv6  Flow Label could be used to identify a specific flow needing redundancy protection in SRv6 data plane. But I may have concerns that flow label cannot be protected to be unmodified en route. A modified flow label can be a disaster for the traffics  which are seeking for deterministic forwarding, not only this flow, also affecting other flows using redundancy protection. And with several security issues mentioned in RFC6437, I doubt if it is a good idea to user IPv6 Flow Label.
Just my 2cents opinion, how do you and other people see it?

Regards,
Fan




发件人: Greg Mirsky [mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com]
发送时间: 2021年3月7日 4:20
收件人: draft-geng-6man-redundancy-protection-srh@ietf.org
抄送: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>rg>; DetNet WG <detnet@ietf.org>rg>; Greg Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com>
主题: Flow Identification in IPv6

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