IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: I-D Action: draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion-02.txt

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 02 December 2017 22:15 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A96D7126C22 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Dec 2017 14:15:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 iyuVx_jFXPEv for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Dec 2017 14:15:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x231.google.com (mail-pf0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::231]) (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 BA5FF1241F3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Dec 2017 14:15:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x231.google.com with SMTP id y89so6189819pfk.0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 02 Dec 2017 14:15:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IqZodC/LeWR2q/4YXqhFWxk8cvDjaF1nB/jz0n4/N54=; b=l9zdlp7exzEro1WX9YEORSCgv4MgC07XlVSnrfjNhWG+ut2ol0Dbac/xdKmjxJXW4n 0FEa0ukfUGYo0z0Wjo5CiukbFzfZXT9/Ygy0yFNMQendyGULyVXotyDSoEcP00mISXFN EPL60/qq4N9qrFwdZQPWxf3JCrqXJXzsovl3FEXD37VzRsZa4ir84/RU+g4Dt1Z/rrO+ /duMXbOT1CGUWhSp1mmVdXpU56Rk0VRGAUIrd7Si26QM15vVIIcVYxE89SZ1bSLC/ah+ wS7aWeXHDMmox+jQNIfcWjlL9BofGkjw2QApzIMzCM0pQd/vl4xGaV55RLr37SR+JvoW 7S+A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IqZodC/LeWR2q/4YXqhFWxk8cvDjaF1nB/jz0n4/N54=; b=p+carcgJuJx4VEvftTDqiqwLpfXp/kDrGE4DMhb+bUc2EbpVtIq/DWuHEMI6ll1jBr fp2Fdu2dKlG+mBnSMG+3zyI6qDjQK2KhFQoI1T7aYv4WhtjaZ4+yOD12wKUPMPJXT4pZ /9qJuMe5sixsV6ixnfWAH4K+gHJEsX8CadmSb74o1zAxqe1xOHZ6sf5gNnY+JQtctQtM qadMovNI1+p9HxgxsnRNknSDFnOgMwVqED+/el8ot9lq9lJLtooRuXFJzSsYYpCDpYRb m4RjFa2mpzLOkkfvniRzzj8mbkf4pPlPyBlsoWzDNnR1PP+3cu3tke8fJwSCF2MYM9kq 8ExA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX5HEiD03tKU6LOnAecY6RNx+7OWfp91wAlLtGM9ndAZknVtaMDb nt9QRWZ9msRlc6j7Jiqvfy+AbQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMZsoyP4L35aUFPeWsqIXfMr6392WzrNnz43/L3FeQdDWddSkvFvuoJweaWBcIGsr8Km1OuAhg==
X-Received: by 10.98.51.6 with SMTP id z6mr14857970pfz.34.1512252940937; Sat, 02 Dec 2017 14:15:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:6f17:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:6f17:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z25sm16541981pfe.121.2017.12.02.14.15.38 for <ipv6@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 02 Dec 2017 14:15:40 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion-02.txt
To: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <151120281628.21912.1099097760493570225@ietfa.amsl.com> <f4425076-2f76-5713-2819-9d26671d56bb@si6networks.com> <4E92F160-C586-4C7B-BAEF-97C204856A8A@employees.org> <bc9d7f57-8687-7f85-8ac3-49751683232b@si6networks.com> <CA+b+ERnKbRXgFycgKd7EXMVvS1Mu_RTC5tfPbNE781TDZ49rYA@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2wWSucKNouo0RxNf7pmyPErNk1bVny43qTLY6E333mpcQ@mail.gmail.com> <e41ee3ae-05ef-0a1a-505e-968323b07625@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2x2-WFyxYKpcwtm_z4WiFFf1M5oiW2=j6fXnqgUG1F8DQ@mail.gmail.com> <8ecf3590-5313-551e-fbb3-f95aada87a67@uniroma2.it> <CALx6S35e0krDCLUhUQFws_gSJhtv0m_E_KQkyRQQWO=zL_=vnQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+b+ERki3bfmt0FarOdNGbVbdU1U99Sucu3NhEZ9q1BnNxUQrw@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S34fSBycO+1pU8x3konO+6=s9sYWQQaFp36kcHi4HdyxFQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+b+ERmF2rj4n9mfvG+ANdNjpBXgpMJb63SqSNVQif4cvwaTPQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S34rvUig5T36cygkq4=rN2yNEBPUHGULDFEefA46WgCkbw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+b+ERmJ8L-j0arbFhR+nvmPNNWYe5OJ3Pab1bu1Y-2HVfJtYw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <1cf221bc-e2e3-bc04-6559-d01eff2e1232@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2017 11:15:36 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ERmJ8L-j0arbFhR+nvmPNNWYe5OJ3Pab1bu1Y-2HVfJtYw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/SpwsH6XRAGCnyEcQTPRyvIeaSlQ>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sat, 02 Dec 2017 22:15:44 -0000

On 03/12/2017 08:53, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>>
>> Right, the idea is that at each node the input flow label and dst map
>> to an output flow label. All the flow label tables are constructed to
>> provide give loop free forwarding and multipath selection.
> 
> 
> ​That's essentially SR-MPLS :) ​

If you look at the early history of the flow label, which predated MPLS,
this isn't a big surprise. (IPng-ologists also remember CATNIP,
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1707.)

> 
> SRH would be unneeded in this solution.
> 
> 
> ​True - but I was just counting in general node's forwarding capabilites​.
> 
> ​I think the less moving parts we standardize the better :)

It's true, but the flow label is already in every packet, albeit
with different semantics.

   Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email