Re: Pseudorandom Flow Labels

Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Wed, 06 April 2011 00:06 UTC

Return-Path: <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CDD33A684D for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 17:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.67
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.071, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dxtl902I72Gd for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 17:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com (e31.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C450D3A6844 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 17:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from d03relay05.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay05.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.107]) by e31.co.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p35NqsYR025031 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 17:52:54 -0600
Received: from d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (d03av05.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.85]) by d03relay05.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p3608RkB103930 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 18:08:27 -0600
Received: from d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p3608RYD025328 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 18:08:27 -0600
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-65-200-167.mts.ibm.com [9.65.200.167]) by d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id p3608QEl025300 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 5 Apr 2011 18:08:27 -0600
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.12.5) with ESMTP id p3608OlC022133; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 20:08:25 -0400
Message-Id: <201104060008.p3608OlC022133@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
Subject: Re: Pseudorandom Flow Labels
In-reply-to: <9ED6022F-6863-4267-A268-C73240098539@apple.com>
References: <BD901061-96AC-4915-B7CE-2BC1F70861A5@castlepoint.net> <201104052036.p35KaoHV019253@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <19204E85-5B6E-409C-B450-7E3AC5EF47FA@apple.com> <201104052148.p35LmM9g019765@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <9ED6022F-6863-4267-A268-C73240098539@apple.com>
Comments: In-reply-to james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com> message dated "Tue, 05 Apr 2011 15:49:24 -0700."
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 20:08:24 -0400
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
Cc: 6MAN Working Group <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 00:06:54 -0000

> Discrepancy is a measure of the deviation of a point set from a
>  uniform distribution.

Actually, the core issue is that we do not need the Flow Label to be
uniformly distributed.

In an ideal world, that would be a nice property to have. And all
things equal, better to have that propert than not.

But for ECMP and other types of things being discussed, such a
property is simply *not* required to get perfectly fine results.

What is *required* is that the hash function (or whatever function
that is used) on the router maps the tuples in a *uniform* way across
the range of possible outputs.

If you have 10 links, and all your Flow Labels are clustered around
low ten values, but in an approximately uniform way, a simple modulo
hash will get you the kind of distribution you need.

The range of values of the flow label itself does not need to be
uniformly distributed.

That is why incrementing a counter for each new flow provides adequate
properties. I remain unconvinced that we need to require that they
exhibit pseudo randomness, or even be uniform.

If that is a requirement, I'd like to see the justification, not just
hand waiving.

Thomas