Re: I-D Action: draft-filsfils-6man-structured-flow-label-00.txt

+1

On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 9:04 AM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:

> This requires something more strict than a "limited domain".  It
> requires a limited domain with universal deployment.  Otherwise, very
> strange things are likely to happen.
>
> More generally, it just seems a bad idea.  It is pretending that this
> particular extension is so special it should get a resource that does
> not even exist.
>
> Please don't.
> Joel
>
> On 4/13/2021 4:47 AM, Ahmed Abdelsalam (ahabdels) wrote:
> > Inline [AA]
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
> > Date: Monday, 12 April 2021 at 22:41
> > To: ahabdels <ahabdels@cisco.com>, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, "
> 6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, "
> draft-filsfils-6man-structured-flow-label@ietf.org" <
> draft-filsfils-6man-structured-flow-label@ietf.org>
> > Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-filsfils-6man-structured-flow-label-00.txt
> >
> >      On 13-Apr-21 04:01, Ahmed Abdelsalam (ahabdels) wrote:
> >      > Hi Ron,
> >      >
> >      > Thanks for reading the draft. I think we agree on the problem
> statement
> >      >
> >      > In our view using a 256-bit HopByHop extension header to encode a
> 1-bit flag, is far from efficient.
> >      >
> >      > Also, as you point out, the proposed update in
> draft-hinden-6man-hbh-processing (which in my view is going in the right
> direction), limits HBH to one single header with one single option. If we
> encode the flag in a HbH option, we won’t be able to use HBH for anything
> else.
> >      >
> >      > Structured FL can be used for packet marking while HBH can be
> used in many other use-cases that require more than simple packet marking.
> >
> >      But there is no such thing as a structured flow label, because the
> standard specifies it as a 20-bit pseudo-random value. As my and other
> replies have shown, the proposal is not a backwards compatible change
> except possibly in limited domains. From a glance at my inbox, that has now
> become the main topic of discussion.
> >
> > [AA] Brain, Yes. This draft targets limited domain. We highlighted this
> in Recommended Design section and in next revision we are going to state
> this at the beginning of the draft.
> >
> >         Brian
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > ipv6@ietf.org
> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
-- 

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*


*M 301 502-1347*