IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Tassos Chatzithomaoglou <achatz@forthnetgroup.gr> Sat, 15 October 2011 11:49 UTC

Return-Path: <achatz@forthnetgroup.gr>
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 DFCBE21F8B1E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 04:49:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.356
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.356 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.215, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457]
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 wEcHZoyNmMPm for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 04:49:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx-out.forthnet.gr (mx-out.forthnet.gr [193.92.150.115]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1615D21F8A66 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 04:49:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx-av-05.forthnet.gr (mx-av.forthnet.gr [193.92.150.27]) by mx-out-03.forthnet.gr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9FBnkBm007028; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 14:49:46 +0300
Received: from MX-IN-04.forthnet.gr (mx-in-04.forthnet.gr [193.92.150.163]) by mx-av-05.forthnet.gr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9FBnjJc010700; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 14:49:45 +0300
Received: from [62.1.48.75] (achatz.forthnet.gr [62.1.48.75]) (authenticated bits=0) by MX-IN-04.forthnet.gr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9FBna9T022593; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 14:49:36 +0300
Authentication-Results: MX-IN-04.forthnet.gr smtp.mail=achatz@forthnetgroup.gr; auth=pass (PLAIN)
Message-ID: <4E99734C.5050304@forthnetgroup.gr>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 14:49:32 +0300
From: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou <achatz@forthnetgroup.gr>
Organization: Forthnet S.A.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110928 Firefox/7.0.1 SeaMonkey/2.4.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: FW: New Version Notification for draft-hsingh-6man-enhanced-dad-01.txt
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>
In-Reply-To: <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C3031303DE@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 11:49:48 -0000

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

Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote on 15/10/2011 03:24: 
Brian,

Thanks for the reference.  BTW, I was relatively sold on using the Flow Label to stick a nonce into for ND traffic because ND traffic remains in the link-local domain and is control traffic.  It's not like a nonce labeled Flow Label data packet is leaking out to the wide area network.  Also with the Flow Label there is less confusion vs. when we use the Nonce Option defined from SEND.  In a mixed SEND and unsecured (no SEND) network, the lengths of the nonces MUST be the same.  Otherwise some sloppy implementation can cause a buffer overrun parsing the nonce.  

It was the 20-bits in the Flow Label that was one big reason to ditch using it and then other was what my colleague said about overloading the Flow Label. 

Regards,

Hemant

-----Original Message-----
From: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou [mailto:achatz@forthnetgroup.gr] 
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 8:17 PM
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

I have no objection Brian. I can understand the reason for keeping the flow label "clean".

I was just wondering if there were any plans to use the flow label for ND traffic too, or 
we should consider that there are no real flows there.

Regards,
Tassos

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email