IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Reference based Routing (RbR)

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Sun, 24 May 2020 20:51 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 520DF3A0C82; Sun, 24 May 2020 13:51:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 eScNanDMOpNn; Sun, 24 May 2020 13:51:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E03673A0C0C; Sun, 24 May 2020 13:50:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:420:c0c1:81:11d0:fb03:3243:2136] (unknown [IPv6:2001:420:c0c1:81:11d0:fb03:3243:2136]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ED06B4E11C82; Sun, 24 May 2020 20:50:56 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: Reference based Routing (RbR)
Date: Sun, 24 May 2020 22:50:53 +0200
Message-Id: <05B3C66C-5CB2-4871-8AF9-52517C56866C@employees.org>
References: <82165E20-884F-467B-B364-1B0A8B84A38A@tony.li>
Cc: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <82165E20-884F-467B-B364-1B0A8B84A38A@tony.li>
To: tony.li@tony.li
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17F75)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/eDJRe9zMiBYmAdw6oot2qzOnAiU>
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: Sun, 24 May 2020 20:51:08 -0000


> On 24 May 2020, at 20:10, tony.li@tony.li wrote:
> 
> Is someone actually using the flow label?  As far as I know it’s wholly unused.

Inside a limited domain using encapsulation, which is what all these solutions cover, you could likely use the flow label as a “path tag”. 
If there is much benefit in using an IPv6 header for the encapsulation is another matter. 

Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email