IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by hop

Philip Levis <pal@cs.stanford.edu> Thu, 25 October 2012 22:54 UTC

Return-Path: <pal@cs.stanford.edu>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AA2B21F84ED for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 15:54:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 Yi7Ku1BCnTHJ for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 15:54:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cs-smtp-3.Stanford.EDU (cs-smtp-3.Stanford.EDU [171.64.64.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 608F721F84A0 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 15:54:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dn52219v.sunet ([10.33.5.63]) by cs-smtp-3.Stanford.EDU with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from <pal@cs.stanford.edu>) id 1TRWJk-0003yx-KQ; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 15:54:25 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Philip Levis <pal@cs.stanford.edu>
In-Reply-To: <50898229.1030105@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 15:54:25 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <09E96C25-8B21-446F-95F6-C36F339C6E54@cs.stanford.edu>
References: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD8221CB0DA@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <5081A327.9010505@exegin.com> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD8221D85A6@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <5087F457.1050409@gmail.com> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD8221DEA68@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <B700D2B3-0AB4-441D-9506-550E9604D7DA@gmail.com> <50881297.4050801@gmail.com> <399491E5-8BC7-4A33-9426-B9047FC051FF@cs.stanford.edu> <50898229.1030105@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
X-Scan-Signature: a1ccd6d2fa83ef575f7b7817ead66a1e
Cc: roll <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by hop
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:54:30 -0000

On Oct 25, 2012, at 11:17 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> The reason I wouldn't oppose it is that the idea is that on the open
> Internet, any forwarding device should be able to use the flow label
> for ECMP, LAG or some other kind of load balancing. If the label is
> set according to RFC 6437 at a well-defined point (such as the ROLL/Internet
> boundary), this would be satisfied. Yes, I am being a bit heretical
> about my own RFC ;-).

Again, my concern is being in accordance with RFC6437. If 6man obsoletes it for a more flexible use of the flow label, then I have zero objections to the proposal (and even think it is good).

Phil

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email