Re: IPv6 Flows, Mobile IPv6 Flows, ROLL RPL Flows

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

Using RFC 3697 instead of Traffic Selectors (draft-ietf-mext-binary-ts) has been discussed in MEXT, here is a pointer:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg03327.html

I don't think MEXT opted for that kind of use, they want more generic flow description.

BR,

Behcet


----- Original Message ----
> From: Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>
> To: Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Sent: Wed, April 14, 2010 4:45:30 PM
> Subject: Re: IPv6 Flows, Mobile IPv6 Flows, ROLL RPL Flows
> 
> > For whom is this Flow Label update intended? 

1. For all the people 
> who have proposed use cases that are incompatible
with RFC 3697. This is 
> briefly discussed in the draft, and I plan
another draft with more details 
> about that.

2. To "unlock" the uses cases already proposed that are 
> compatible with
RFC 3697 (draft-blake-ipv6-flow-label-nonce, ECMP, and 
> LAG).

I haven't tracked MEXT at all. If they want to place 
> requirements
on the flow label, now would be a good time for them to tell 
> 6man.

Regards
  Brian

On 2010-04-15 05:41, Alexandru 
> Petrescu wrote:
> I take advantage of my slot here to also talk about the 
> fact that I
> believe Flow Labels and IPv6 Flows in general are little 
> known in MEXT.
> 
> For example the MEXT WG defines an "IPv6 flow" 
> to be a "group of packets
> matching a traffic selector", different than 
> the rfc3697 idea of
> "3-tuple of the Flow Label and the Source and 
> Destination Address fields
> enables efficient IPv6 flow 
> classification".
> 
> MEXT's draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding-06 goes 
> further and defines "A flow
> identifier uniquely identifies a flow 
> binding associated with a mobile
> node.  It is generated by a mobile 
> node and is cached in the table of
> flow binding entries maintained by 
> the MN, HA, CN or MAP.".
> 
> No MEXT mentioning of "Flow Label", 
> but the same spirit - because a flow
> binding is actually a pair of 
> addresses to which one adds an 16bit (not
> 20) id.
> 
> MEXT 
> Mobile IPv6 using the _spirit_ of IPv6 flows (3-tuple
> 
> address-address-id), and the term "flow" but _not_ the IPv6 Flow Label
> 
> field was very surprising to me at the time of proposal.
> 
> Now I 
> am surprised 6MAN proposes to modify the IPv6 Flow Label - what
> does 
> this mean to MEXT Mobile IPv6?  Is 6MAN proposing new Flow Label
> 
> behaviour in order to be better in MEXT (doesn't seem so, mutability
> 
> wasn't requested in MEXT)?  Or just ROLL?
> 
> For whom is this 
> Flow Label update intended?
> 
> Alex
> 
> Le 14/04/2010 
> 19:21, Alexandru Petrescu a écrit :
>> Hi, I came across this draft 
> coming from the ROLL space where a
>> proposal exists to use the Flow 
> Label changed enroute maybe.
>>
>> Besides the fact that I 
> find ROLL use of such spec of 6MAN not being
>> ready, i.e. in its 
> infance (I will suggest that to the ROLL WG), I
>> have a general 
> comment here in 6MAN.
>>
>> Modifying a field of an IP packet 
> "en-route" is something which
>> comes with a price tag: obviously 
> slower. Generally speaking writing
>> takes much longer than 
> reading.
>>
>> I find this proposal to change the Flow Label 
> behaviour to come in
>> too early, at a point where we don't yet have 
> widespread use of
>> simple Flow Labels (or is it widely 
> used?).
>>
>> I wouldn't touch on any IP field enroute... 
> there exist already
>> exceptions allowing to touch enroute and they're 
> not widely used
>> either (RH, HbH, etc.)
>>
>> 
> Alex
>>
>> Le 18/02/2010 04:34, Brian E Carpenter a écrit 
> :
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This may seem a bit 
> unexpected, but after working on
>>> draft-carpenter-flow-ecmp (just 
> updated) and working with my
>>> student Qinwen Hu on some aspects 
> of the flow label, it seemed like
>>> time for another look at the 
> flow label standard, and Sheng Jiang
>>> was having similar 
> thoughts.
>>>
>>> We'd like to discuss this in Anaheim 
> if possible.
>>>
>>> 
> Brian
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message -------- 
> Subject: I-D
>>> Action:draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-00.txt 
> Date: Wed, 17 Feb
>>> 2010 18:15:02 -0800 (PST) From: > ymailto="mailto:[e-mail]" 
> href="mailto:[e-mail]">[e-mail] 
> Reply-To:
>>> > href="mailto:[e-mail]">[e-mail] To: > ymailto="mailto:[e-mail]" 
> href="mailto:[e-mail]">[e-mail]
>>>
>>> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line 
> Internet-Drafts
>>> directories.
>>>
>>> 
> Title : Update to the IPv6 flow label specification Author(s) : 
> B.
>>>  Carpenter, S. Jiang Filename :
>>> 
> draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-00.txt Pages : 9 Date :
>>> 
> 2010-02-17
>>>
>>> Various uses proposed for the IPv6 
> flow label are incompatible
>>> with its existing specification. 
> This document describes changes to
>>> the specification that permit 
> additional use cases as well as
>>> allowing continued use of the 
> previous specification.
>>>
>>> A URL for this 
> Internet-Draft is:
>>>
>> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-00.txt
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > href="mailto:[e-mail]">[e-mail] Administrative
>>> 
> Requests: > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > href="mailto:[e-mail]">[e-mail] Administrative
>> 
> Requests: > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > href="mailto:[e-mail]">[e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: 
> > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF 
> IPv6 working group mailing list
> href="mailto:[e-mail]">[e-mail]
Administrative Requests: > href="https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6" target=_blank 
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------