IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: FW: New Version Notification for draft-hsingh-6man-enhanced-dad-01.txt

"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com> Sat, 15 October 2011 12:55 UTC

Return-Path: <shemant@cisco.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 144AE21F8B3E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 05:55:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.319
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.319 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.279, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dX1tBrYzOH3p for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 05:55:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53FA021F8B1C for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 05:55:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; l=9644; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1318683333; x=1319892933; h=mime-version:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: references:from:to:cc; bh=+EgndPwG7fYyhoR2MEH//1uYtDYhOUIZcvHaKuXxZ6A=; b=UOnHHqL4Zc8IhX+YxxtDujg5dfBqi2KPFuptQBoM5HhUx+ax8DLz3Ioj Ufpql5FDxcfzO1OUnPdkdpKF8pqrNo40islli3C6XmvaR7TigXqThOrzD BDvYKyYY7O3BJ4Bh4JP63ia5taZfw/5C5KvDzyX29QZMTtX51110iW3Z+ o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqYAAAuCmU6tJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABDgk2CKJRHjiiBAIEFgW4BAQEBAxIBCQcKAz4JAhACAQgOAwQBAQsGFwECAgIBAUQIAQgBAQQBEggaoAwBjEeRJYZ0M2EEiAKRKoxC
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.69,350,1315180800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="28664038"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Oct 2011 12:55:32 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com [72.163.62.139]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9FCtWXp026807; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:55:32 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-109.cisco.com ([72.163.62.151]) by xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sat, 15 Oct 2011 07:55:32 -0500
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CC8B39.B91C3F95"
Subject: RE: FW: New Version Notification for draft-hsingh-6man-enhanced-dad-01.txt
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 07:55:31 -0500
Message-ID: <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C303130411@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E99734C.5050304@forthnetgroup.gr>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: FW: New Version Notification for draft-hsingh-6man-enhanced-dad-01.txt
Thread-Index: AcyLMIpvCBFPWP5kRpSjTHBs6ttNOwACCdFQ
References: <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C3030A436F@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com> <4E98B7AE.9050103@forthnet.gr> <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C3031303AC@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com> <4E98C626.2060102@forthnetgroup.gr> <4E98C933.4040402@gmail.com> <4E98D102.3060601@forthnetgroup.gr> <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C3031303DE@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com> <4E99734C.5050304@forthnetgroup.gr>
From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>
To: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou <achatz@forthnetgroup.gr>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Oct 2011 12:55:32.0666 (UTC) FILETIME=[B96459A0:01CC8B39]
Cc: IPv6 WG Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:55:34 -0000

I certainly don’t believe so.   The usual use of Flow Label seems to assume the labeled packet traverses more than one hop.  After all, the typical use of the Flow Label is to let each hop know what processing to do based on the Flow Label.   However, a link-local domain whose traffic is restricted to within one link with no traversal across a router/hop, the Flow Label does not have a hop-by-hop use but certainly if some information needs to be provided to all nodes the flow label can be used.  But such information is best provided by the control protocol of ND used in the link.  So why overload the Flow Label.   Anyway, some folks may not like the small size of 20 bits to be used in a nonce .

 

Hemant

 

From: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou [mailto:achatz@forthnetgroup.gr] 
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2011 7:50 AM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); IPv6 WG Mailing List
Subject: Re: FW: New Version Notification for draft-hsingh-6man-enhanced-dad-01.txt

 

Also, looking at draft-ietf-6man-flow-3697bis-07, i can see the following under introduction:

A stateful
   scenario is one where a node that processes the flow label value
   needs to store information about the flow, including the flow label
   value. 

...

   The flow label can be used most simply in stateless scenarios.  This
   specification concentrates on the stateless model and how it can be
   used as a default mechanism.  Details of stateful models, signaling,
   specific flow state establishment methods and their related service
   models are out of scope for this specification.  
 

Does this mean that the usage of flow label on ND/DAD is out of scope of 3697bis?

--
Tassos

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email