Re: AD review of draft-ietf-6man-flow-update
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 20 June 2011 21:53 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 6CAF811E80AF for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 14:53:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.468
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.468 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.131, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Sd+gOBEiTkys for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 14:53:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ABD411E808E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 14:53:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxm15 with SMTP id 15so1611612fxm.31 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 14:53:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent :mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=nuIRy4GwaPOPdy3fcH3aw7CJIxbGKfmMCaCBiRF7L9A=; b=mnAwiiowUqe3pEQK/lwJTbGOiDgRoBokdTLuHVgmV81VgfClDXa/KSg5sNwbG2UuOI MUT3H30FS0gNHyTkCYGqrFrv/lh+PYUwnEGLAPjkSc6XvAMUeE8yIk+ZE9uCeUCYy25G 1zfrPqvTPjJ/ADv8po6vmj7IGVgE/bvQG35yE=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=Rwtof3t2mvTbLCqCj7Z/elNCLT2SUMgfbmXnNLJLajZUftXqQuklo2Ab9vv3YHJh0/ 3J9bc5qU7Oko41T/OWiTTEJ+g1TdeXS6JG7U1hAFmZodm4jG+PxggxnyjzFRkPjRPvZz xDNe+TOtUllw/rpf/C7h+ebB37pQkY+uj5SEw=
Received: by 10.223.87.3 with SMTP id u3mr2305109fal.13.1308606790369; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 14:53:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.255.25.96] (74-95-74-1-Indianapolis.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [74.95.74.1]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n13sm3045197fab.46.2011.06.20.14.53.08 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 20 Jun 2011 14:53:09 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4DFFC13F.7020001@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 09:53:03 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-6man-flow-update
References: <4DFED6BF.6080003@piuha.net> <4DFF44A6.4020309@gmail.com> <4DFF8E05.3000702@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <4DFF8E05.3000702@piuha.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-6man-flow-update@tools.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: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:53:12 -0000
On 2011-06-21 06:14, Jari Arkko wrote: > Brian, > >>> four bits from the flow label as reserved values >> >> There was a pretty clear consensus against having any special bits, when >> this sort of idea was discussed last year. >> > > Ok. Was there a rationale, e.g., that it would be impossible to do so > for some reason, or that the bits could not be used? I'd have to trawl the archive to find all the arguments, but the main issue was that any attempt to include semantics in the bits of the flow label leads to complexity that probably can't be handled at line speed in a scaleable way. Also 16 bits might make it too easy for a malicious party to predict flow label values. Brian
- Re: AD review of draft-ietf-6man-flow-update RJ Atkinson
- AD review of draft-ietf-6man-flow-update Jari Arkko
- Re: AD review of draft-ietf-6man-flow-update Brian E Carpenter
- Re: AD review of draft-ietf-6man-flow-update Jari Arkko
- Re: AD review of draft-ietf-6man-flow-update Brian E Carpenter
- Re: AD review of draft-ietf-6man-flow-update Brian E Carpenter