Re: I-D Action: draft-filsfils-6man-structured-flow-label-00.txt

This requires something more strict than a "limited domain".  It 
requires a limited domain with universal deployment.  Otherwise, very 
strange things are likely to happen.

More generally, it just seems a bad idea.  It is pretending that this 
particular extension is so special it should get a resource that does 
not even exist.

Please don't.
Joel

On 4/13/2021 4:47 AM, Ahmed Abdelsalam (ahabdels) wrote:
> Inline [AA]
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
> Date: Monday, 12 April 2021 at 22:41
> To: ahabdels <ahabdels@cisco.com>, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, "draft-filsfils-6man-structured-flow-label@ietf.org" <draft-filsfils-6man-structured-flow-label@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-filsfils-6man-structured-flow-label-00.txt
> 
>      On 13-Apr-21 04:01, Ahmed Abdelsalam (ahabdels) wrote:
>      > Hi Ron,
>      >
>      > Thanks for reading the draft. I think we agree on the problem statement
>      >
>      > In our view using a 256-bit HopByHop extension header to encode a 1-bit flag, is far from efficient.
>      >
>      > Also, as you point out, the proposed update in draft-hinden-6man-hbh-processing (which in my view is going in the right direction), limits HBH to one single header with one single option. If we encode the flag in a HbH option, we won’t be able to use HBH for anything else.
>      >
>      > Structured FL can be used for packet marking while HBH can be used in many other use-cases that require more than simple packet marking.
> 
>      But there is no such thing as a structured flow label, because the standard specifies it as a 20-bit pseudo-random value. As my and other replies have shown, the proposal is not a backwards compatible change except possibly in limited domains. From a glance at my inbox, that has now become the main topic of discussion.
> 
> [AA] Brain, Yes. This draft targets limited domain. We highlighted this in Recommended Design section and in next revision we are going to state this at the beginning of the draft.
> 
>         Brian
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 