Re: [Roll] [6tisch] Support of flow label to carry the RPL information in data packets

Fernando Gont <> Thu, 17 April 2014 22:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1A011A01E6; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 15:54:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BSGkO2ACmROB; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 15:54:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:8240:6:a::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96AA61A0110; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 15:54:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [2001:5c0:1000:a::bc1] by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <>) id 1WavBh-000776-5t; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 00:53:45 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 19:43:44 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian E Carpenter <>, Fernando Gont <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 19:08:54 -0700
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, roll <>, Ines Robles <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] [6tisch] Support of flow label to carry the RPL information in data packets
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 22:54:12 -0000

Hi, Brian,

On 04/17/2014 05:31 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 04/17/2014 11:27 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
>>> Considering the support we have at 6TiSCH and ROLL for the work, I
>>> published draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-00.txt to the 6MAN WG.
>>> The main discussion is probably to confirm whether our proposed use of
>>> the flow label inside the RPL domain is compatible with the goals that
>>> are achieved by RFC6437. Let us continue the discussion there from now on.
>> I just skimmed through the I-D. Two quick questions:
>> 1) Does your document propose/require that the Flow Label be rewritten
>> by some border router? -- I ask because, at the time, there was strong
>> opposition to this.
> It was of course contested, but we have to remember that the flow label
> is an unauthenticated field, so our interpretation of it has to be
> robust against altered values. RFC 6437 indeed covers the case where a
> forwarding node sets the flow label.

FWIW, I was just asking to get an overall/quick understanding of where
they wanted to go, and contrast that where 6man seemed to want to go at
the time. Just that. IHMO, if the point/use case is valid, we should
"evaluate" their proposal (i.e., by no means I was meaning "6man doesn't
like that, forget it".)

>> 2) Does the algorithm/scheme with which you'll rewrite the Flow-Label
>> lead to predictable sequences? And/or, would the resulting values have a
>> uniform distribution?
> The same part of RFC 6437 does RECOMMEND a uniform distribution.

Agreed. Again, I was checking the extent to which they might be
deviating from that was set here.

Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492