Re: I-D Action: draft-filsfils-6man-structured-flow-label-00.txt
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 10 April 2021 03:38 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 A39BE3A1F77; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 20:38:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 69SEL_jfPRhN; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 20:38:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x430.google.com (mail-pf1-x430.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::430]) (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 712983A1F76; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 20:38:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x430.google.com with SMTP id n38so5505791pfv.2; Fri, 09 Apr 2021 20:38:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cbcdH9PSKnH099RJOfXqoS+HkUgwZBEYNfXHN7VFm+g=; b=UWgTfCajK5DSGLb0zZnoQccV/NneTZDxU9nwWYcllzuvhVfsSwj55XhkatNPua3Etl oaTtC7o982nbcmzG38n6BPmwcN3s6M3yN0emccxvacZIJwY+1QBZbydQ18yBMbfTXgT8 WUItbHWXKJd+SVFCxuWvKEjIa33oUqBoR/2p1jxGQgVlfPtyhIfTWZgeCiOcrsnkRK/K Bn06wW7faRCw13qKdZjTiMreB4nMD0uOJpSOjwis0+5lr2fJ0XRZSxcerhOPDKSxVBEM LZjIt4jVM8ZwicAFMZKa/uaUm+QwPUD0v3LCJYU7dsQUp8u0Gf7TXi9ZAvZ8HDViBBFe kiPA==
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:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=cbcdH9PSKnH099RJOfXqoS+HkUgwZBEYNfXHN7VFm+g=; b=RhzRZKEohq4aq7iDaUNM1u5nnqH9mVeIXD6byvTaB2L3Wb7wUzqA9J0KEzNzsKNtYr Sk80noCPFIH8IOftuWZJhgW9GI63EwrSY2SLA7VApdFXEfyD+yspf3iSqCPzKLGabpm6 tq8Y0tlssUiabq3i/nhE+hLK1bh/cUPJMXjT1s6AaU/wiaO8DqIu9iqchb14yXgbrdLj DFKiHuBkoVOSOxf1uCnMqC7Hln7A/tBguEGyrvWdltLj4WU90zsRZeaALfV8VnZgn9Ya PKnypeTSpznDdg3uHRaGR8pTzmGVi5hUz7jZQqS4LNCeti9CnO94ZrWVSXeJlzbHbdb0 zNhA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5317RWIBtEwpdjAvj+LON72dmCgkNv+eQt45bwZMCn5kMjSlCkk4 NYJNaD46R98Rg83MB9HI6Svq+V1WJiR0lw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzEICO1tvSdHrAOFqVEFIssgQ+oLdcULD975o6SizqtHoItkGVmYe8qazvemHaCI5CXJd/17w==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:5626:: with SMTP id k38mr17182195pgb.128.1618025930043; Fri, 09 Apr 2021 20:38:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.131.14]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x20sm3466073pjp.12.2021.04.09.20.38.47 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 09 Apr 2021 20:38:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-filsfils-6man-structured-flow-label-00.txt
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, "draft-filsfils-6man-structured-flow-label@ietf.org" <draft-filsfils-6man-structured-flow-label@ietf.org>
References: <161591339002.5771.1047511172491571607@ietfa.amsl.com> <b9ac5db9-58ab-5e23-d00e-886e9e72595e@gmail.com> <BL0PR05MB53165598411E9CF7B34E89D4AE749@BL0PR05MB5316.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <34787b4f-fdfb-953a-4458-ca410ba70c08@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2021 15:38:47 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BL0PR05MB53165598411E9CF7B34E89D4AE749@BL0PR05MB5316.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/_xKitZyZxJytRazYsQz20QkSoDI>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 10 Apr 2021 03:38:56 -0000
On 09-Apr-21 10:12, Ron Bonica wrote: > Clarence, > > Draft-filsfils-6man-structured-flow-label addresses a real problem. However, it may have issues with regard to backwards compatibility and IPv6 extensibility. Each is addressed below. > > Backwards Compatibility > ==================== > In the draft, you divide the flow label into 4 FLC bits and 16 FLE bits. The 4 FLC bits carry per-packet control information and are not used for ECMP load-balancing. The 16 FLE bits are as defined in RFC 6437. > > This raises the issue of backwards compatibility. Many legacy devices IPv6 devices use all 20 bits of the flow label as defined in RFC 6437. As you say in Section 4, this could cause packets belonging to a single flow to be distributed among multiple paths. So, the degree of packet reordering at the ultimate destination node will increase to an unacceptable level. And the use of the flow label for server-farm load balancing will be completely broken. That's why this idea is a non-starter outside a limited domain. Brian > > IPv6 Extensibility > ============== > > Over the past decade, there have been several proposals that take the following form: > > - An IPv6 source node needs to convey some piece of information to every node along the packet's delivery path > - Field X in the IPv6 header is longer than it needs to be > - So, we can borrow a few bits from Field X to convey this information. > > This approach is flawed for the following reasons: > > - It can cause backwards compatibility issues, as described above > - It only works a few times, until there are no more bits to be borrowed in the base IPv6 header > > IPv6 includes a Hop-by-hop Options header. It's purpose is to convey information from the source node to every node along the packet's delivery path. Sadly, it was implemented badly so that it can be used as a DoS vector. Therefore, network operators generally filter it. > > A better approach would be: > > - to avoid borrowing bits from the IPv6 header > - to use the HBH Option for its intended purpose > > This will require rehabilitation of the HBH option. Bob Hinden and Gorry Fairhurst have made a good start towards this goal in draft-hinden-6man-hbh-processing. We vendors will also need to get behind the rehabilitation effort, revising our implementations so that it can no longer be used as a DoS vector. In turn, network operators will also need to get behind the rehabilitation effort. > > While this may not be the path of least resistance, it will contribute to the future extensibility of IPv6. Let's do the right thing. > > Ron > > > > > > On 17-Mar-21 05:49, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. >> >> >> Title : Structured Flow Label >> Authors : Clarence Filsfils >> Ahmed Abdelsalam >> Shay Zadok >> Xiaohu Xu >> Weiqiang Cheng >> Daniel Voyer >> Pablo Camarillo Garvia >> Filename : draft-filsfils-6man-structured-flow-label-00.txt >> Pages : 12 >> Date : 2021-03-16 >> > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >
- Re: I-D Action: draft-filsfils-6man-structured-fl… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: I-D Action: draft-filsfils-6man-structured-fl… Ron Bonica
- Re: I-D Action: draft-filsfils-6man-structured-fl… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: I-D Action: draft-filsfils-6man-structured-fl… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: I-D Action: draft-filsfils-6man-structured-fl… Tom Herbert
- Re: I-D Action: draft-filsfils-6man-structured-fl… Gyan Mishra
- Re: I-D Action: draft-filsfils-6man-structured-fl… Gyan Mishra
- Re: I-D Action: draft-filsfils-6man-structured-fl… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: I-D Action: draft-filsfils-6man-structured-fl… Gyan Mishra
- Re: I-D Action: draft-filsfils-6man-structured-fl… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: I-D Action: draft-filsfils-6man-structured-fl… Ahmed Abdelsalam (ahabdels)
- Re: I-D Action: draft-filsfils-6man-structured-fl… Ahmed Abdelsalam (ahabdels)
- Re: I-D Action: draft-filsfils-6man-structured-fl… Tom Herbert
- Re: I-D Action: draft-filsfils-6man-structured-fl… Nick Hilliard
- Re: I-D Action: draft-filsfils-6man-structured-fl… Ahmed Abdelsalam (ahabdels)
- Re: I-D Action: draft-filsfils-6man-structured-fl… Ahmed Abdelsalam (ahabdels)
- RE: I-D Action: draft-filsfils-6man-structured-fl… Ron Bonica
- Re: I-D Action: draft-filsfils-6man-structured-fl… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: I-D Action: draft-filsfils-6man-structured-fl… Ahmed Abdelsalam (ahabdels)
- Re: I-D Action: draft-filsfils-6man-structured-fl… Joel M. Halpern
- RE: I-D Action: draft-filsfils-6man-structured-fl… Ron Bonica
- Re: I-D Action: draft-filsfils-6man-structured-fl… Ahmed Abdelsalam (ahabdels)
- RE: I-D Action: draft-filsfils-6man-structured-fl… Ron Bonica
- Re: I-D Action: draft-filsfils-6man-structured-fl… Stewart Bryant
- Re: I-D Action: draft-filsfils-6man-structured-fl… Gyan Mishra