IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] [6lo] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Thu, 14 August 2014 10:28 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E2751A09D8; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 03:28:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.169
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 EZhHvnS92bwD; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 03:28:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 398731A09DD; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 03:28:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2399; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1408012119; x=1409221719; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Ahv4vpnJwd2RZZY9mMG7UR9qhvvqEfk+ovHeJ+Z5LJk=; b=JSfKgqPzp78VOHSQ33/WthxsHZdQroiHy4LkhlFRStxrEaTPElHU5aFD jhrtxq9pl769z8ehLF8ewuK+6kYpVg+Za2Fh8QRAU8Ym6waChjQKyrd1l MtE71P4j8iJDoT1P9Bf3gAcoaYkS9XX4qngdHaeDJl2EbUzD8uqF1IlZM U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnUFAE6O7FOtJV2R/2dsb2JhbABaDoJ/UlcEzWMKh0gBgRUWd4QDAQEBBAEBAWQHCwwEAgEIEQQBAQEKHQcnCxQJCAIEAQ0FCIg6DcYWEwSOaQwJHTEHBoMpgR0FhhCEU4Y6oBqDGkJsgQdB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,862,1400025600"; d="scan'208";a="347488279"
Received: from rcdn-core-9.cisco.com ([173.37.93.145]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Aug 2014 10:28:38 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com [173.37.183.83]) by rcdn-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7EASbLu024628 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 14 Aug 2014 10:28:37 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.56]) by xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([173.37.183.83]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 05:28:37 -0500
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Philip Levis <pal@cs.stanford.edu>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] [6lo] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03
Thread-Index: AQHPtyoH9NpmEOvPPUCuS34Wv0nHR5vPVpsAgACNI8A=
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 10:28:36 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 10:28:00 +0000
Message-ID: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842D3E4EF@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
References: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842D189A1@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <406B5D64-4F0E-4E71-BC60-A113FB367652@gmail.com> <46112F69-05F0-4E50-A808-287B06AE8E5F@cs.stanford.edu> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842D1A9FA@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <057EC9C6-07FF-409B-A3BC-3348A5F43AB3@gmail.com> <53E534E8.4050304@gmail.com> <F7618DE0-7217-46C2-93A1-CE050085E7AB@employees.org> <53E926EB.9000505@gmail.com> <CAP+sJUfDyNa=t=+C=QXy8MmvG9rAUxA0mTsXL7xSWAeLUR1qcQ@mail.gmail.com> <53EAA58D.4060401@gmail.com> <4C8FA2D5-7FD5-40A0-9D98-081BEC6A0480@tzi.org> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842D3BED8@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <6454DDD1-9A3F-4F46-9493-7307BEC01F4D@cs.stanford.edu> <53EBD028.30302@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <53EBD028.30302@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.55.22.2]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/mM7FNWRDdNWwqJNPCxoUzIMa9oo
Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>, Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org WG" <6lo@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] [6lo] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
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, 14 Aug 2014 10:28:44 -0000

We can live with this Brian, 

but then I can we add at least an ISA100.11a network? ISA100.11a was designed in 2007/8, adopted IPv6 and 6LoWPAN, and uses the IPv6 flow label to indicate which flow a packet belongs to. In more details, devices are provisioned with per-flow behavior (including routing) and settings in what is called a contract. The contractID is carried in the IPv6 flow label.

If so should we name ISA100 specifically or use a more vague description like a "RPL or similar LLN domain" 
We'll note that resetting an flow label that comes from the Internet is a generic need is that flow label was set according to 6437, cannot be trusted to be untempered with, 

Cheers,

Pascal


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: mercredi 13 août 2014 22:53
> To: Philip Levis
> Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks; Ines Robles; 6man WG;
> 6lo@ietf.org WG
> Subject: Re: [Roll] [6lo] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03
> 
> On 14/08/2014 07:07, Philip Levis wrote:
> > On Aug 13, 2014, at 9:48 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
> >
> >> If this draft is not adopted, the flow label from LLN will probably stay all
> zeroes as it is today and the goal of 6437 will not be achieved.
> >
> > Pascal, I'm trying to reconcile your claim that the goal of 6437 is to
> > allow enclosed networks to use the flow label with Brian's statement
> >
> >> Actually that's why I don't want to see a formal update to 6437,
> >> because the only rational update would be to allow any closed domain
> >> to invent its own usage. We had that argument at length during the
> >> development of 6437, and decided against it.
> >
> > Phil
> 
> Right. I'm drawing a very subtle line between (a) stating an exception to 6437
> for this particular usage and (b) opening the door to other usages. Since
> 6man clearly didn't want (b) during the development of
> 6437 I think we do need to limit ourselves to (a).
> 
>     Brian
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email