Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by hop
John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> Thu, 25 October 2012 14:16 UTC
Return-Path: <jdrake@juniper.net>
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 5F52E21F8966 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 07:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.578
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.111, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132]
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 3r3dMbFkUPQR for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 07:16:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og116.obsmtp.com (exprod7og116.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.219]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE1AB21F894F for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 07:16:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob116.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUIlJv+7Mg/EakEeqB2UCFl+e5WpecDgQ@postini.com; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 07:16:32 PDT
Received: from P-CLDFE01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.59) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 07:15:05 -0700
Received: from o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.149) by o365mail.juniper.net (172.24.192.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 07:15:04 -0700
Received: from co1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (216.32.180.188) by o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 07:17:10 -0700
Received: from mail103-co1-R.bigfish.com (10.243.78.246) by CO1EHSOBE001.bigfish.com (10.243.66.64) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 14:15:03 +0000
Received: from mail103-co1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail103-co1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86EB9560080 for <roll@ietf.org.FOPE.CONNECTOR.OVERRIDE>; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 14:15:03 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.244.213; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); (null); H:CH1PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT
X-SpamScore: -23
X-BigFish: PS-23(zz98dI9371I542M1432Idcamzz1202h1d1ah1d2ahzz1033IL17326ah8275dhz2dh2a8h668h839h944hd25hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh1155h)
Received: from mail103-co1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail103-co1 (MessageSwitch) id 1351174501706314_31214; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 14:15:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from CO1EHSMHS004.bigfish.com (unknown [10.243.78.227]) by mail103-co1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FA20180050; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 14:15:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from CH1PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.244.213) by CO1EHSMHS004.bigfish.com (10.243.66.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 14:14:57 +0000
Received: from CH1PRD0510MB356.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.2.205]) by CH1PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.150.39]) with mapi id 14.16.0224.004; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 14:14:56 +0000
From: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "'Pascal Thubert (pthubert)'" <pthubert@cisco.com>, "roll@ietf.org" <roll@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by hop
Thread-Index: Ac2xEy0n78zttzpFSgOnw7I7S2GAIwA/D0QAABt+3YAADHpcAAAC5l8g
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 14:14:55 +0000
Message-ID: <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E07DE696B@CH1PRD0510MB356.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD8221DD3F6@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <12f101cdb20f$6b310280$41930780$@olddog.co.uk> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD8221ECF54@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <145401cdb2af$4ff91fc0$efeb5f40$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <145401cdb2af$4ff91fc0$efeb5f40$@olddog.co.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [66.129.224.54]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%OLDDOG.CO.UK$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%CISCO.COM$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%IETF.ORG$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net
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 14:16:33 -0000
Adrian, It's pretty consistent with the re-definition of the IPv6 label as a flow label in the RFC that Pascal mentioned previously. Yours irrespectively, John > -----Original Message----- > From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk] > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 5:50 AM > To: 'Pascal Thubert (pthubert)'; John E Drake; roll@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by hop > > Hi, > > This and Michael's follow-up are helpful. > > My take-away is that this is a place to put information that will be > used during the routing process, but that the forwarding decision will > not be made on this information in isolation. > > That makes my "overlap with label switching" concern go away. > > (Which is entirely different from considering whether this is a good > idea or not, on which I have no position :-) > > Adrian > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) [mailto:pthubert@cisco.com] > > Sent: 25 October 2012 07:53 > > To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; 'John E Drake'; roll@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by hop > > > > I certainly agree with a good number of your words, Adrian. > > *We are indeed talking about a label that is applied to a packet. > > *It is a label that is related to the flow, and determined by the > instance ID. > > *It is information that will be used for the routing decision at each > > hop in > the LLN. > > > > Which means that the flow label in the routing header is the perfect > > place for > it. > > > > I am still unsure what the relation you make with label switching. > > The > distinction > > I'm making is as follows: > > *In this proposal there is no switching of tags, since the instance > is > conserved in > > the label. Only some metadata is mutable. > > *there is no switching packets either, RPL routing still takes place > > at every > hop > > which involves a route lookup. > > *and there is no switched path to follow with the label, but a > > topology -a > RIB- to > > be determined. > > > > IOW, the instance is more like a topology index for the RIB/FIB > lookup > > that > still > > needs to take place. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Pascal > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk] > > Sent: mercredi 24 octobre 2012 19:46 > > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); 'John E Drake'; roll@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by hop > > > > Hi Pascal, > > > > Speaking as an individual and without an implementation... > > > > I guess I need to look at this in more detail (it always helps to > read > > the > > draft) this still sounds exactly like label switching. > > That is some value of a label is applied to a packet and that label > > will > identify the > > flow and direct the forwarding decision made at the next router. > > Furthermore, the label may be modified hop by hop. > > > > The "overloading" of information into the label doesn't get away from > > the fact that it is a label applied to a packet. > > > > Cheers, > > Adrian > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) [mailto:pthubert@cisco.com] > > > Sent: 23 October 2012 12:41 > > > To: John E Drake; adrian@olddog.co.uk; roll@ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by hop > > > > > > Hi: > > > > > > <I answered to John from my phone but then realized that I did not > > > copy the list.> > > > > > > In short: The packets carried within an instance share a > > > characteristic which > > the > > > OF optimizes for. > > > The OF determines a RPL topology and thus how the flow that is > > > tagged with > > that > > > instance is processed in the network. > > > For flows to be processed differently one may different instances. > > > > > > Considering how open the definition of flow in 2460 is, this fits. > > > > > > The rank stretches that a bit since it qualifies where the flow is > > > in the > > Network. > > > Then again RFC 2460 is open enough not to bar anything. > > > > > > Rather, the spirit is for us to do something useful with this field > > > in the > > forwarding > > > plane and that is exactly what this proposal is doing . > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Pascal > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: John E Drake [mailto:jdrake@juniper.net] > > > Sent: lundi 22 octobre 2012 21:15 > > > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); adrian@olddog.co.uk; roll@ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by hop > > > > > > Pascal, > > > > > > So the information that you are carrying in the IPv6 label field > has > > > nothing > > to do > > > with IPv6 labels? So, why is this not an egregious hack? > > > > > > Yours irrespectively, > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: roll-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On > > > > Behalf Of Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > > > > Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 2:30 PM > > > > To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; roll@ietf.org > > > > Subject: Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by hop > > > > > > > > Adrian, > > > > > > > > This draft is not mpls. This draft is about carrying the RPL info > > > > (rank, instance, flags) in the flow label as opposed to the HbH > > > > which incurs additional header + eventually tunneling. > > > > My other draft on fragment forwarding has a lot more to do with > > > > label switching since the first fragment lays a label that the > > > > other fragments follow. But then we are not using the flow label > > > > but a 6LoWPAN datagram identifier tag. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > Pascal > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: roll-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On > > > > Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > > > > Sent: samedi 20 octobre 2012 21:37 > > > > To: roll@ietf.org > > > > Subject: Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by hop > > > > > > > > Speaking as an individual and without an implementation... > > > > > > > > Isn't this MPLS? > > > > Hasn't the routing area looked at the idea of using the IPv6 flow > > > > label for labelled forwarding more than once in the past? > > > > Hasn't the conclusion always been that you could do it, but you > > > > would have to be sure that you were not overloading the field? > > > > And hasn't the resulting discussion led to a debate on the value > > > > of label stacks and the impracticality of label stacks using the > > > > flow label? > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Adrian > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: roll-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On > > > > > Behalf Of Philip Levis > > > > > Sent: 20 October 2012 14:50 > > > > > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > > > > > Cc: roll@ietf.org > > > > > Subject: Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by hop > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 20, 2012, at 1:19 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Phil; > > > > > > > > > > > > There is indeed lot of pressure for this in terms of header > > > > > > sizes and energy > > > > > consumption in the *real world*. > > > > > > > > > > I'm personally concerned about header sizes and energy > > > > > consumption in The Matrix. Because I don't live in the real > > > > > world. Oh, wait, sorry, > > > > I > > > > > do. Can you > > > > walk > > > > > me through the quantitative reasoning that a few bytes of > header > > > > > will increase energy consumption? It the belief that it will > > > > > lead to sub-packet > > > > fragmentation in > > > > > some non-amortized sense? Generally speaking, in low power > > > > > wireless networks, energy consumption is dominated by idle > > > > > listening and communication latency/interval support, not the > > > > > length of > > packets. > > > > > Of course there is a > > > > spectrum > > > > > of low power approaches and their point on that spectrum. Are > > > > > you thinking of one in particular? > > > > > > > > > > Could implementers who are encountering this pressure comment? > > > > > I'm a sucker for and easily swayed by quantitative data as well > > > > > as first-hand rather than second-hand reports. > > > > > > > > > > > And there is no hack in the proposed solution. > > > > > > Simply we believe more in practical engineering and ML > > > > > > discussions than we > > > > > trust in crystal balls. > > > > > > > > > > *coughs politely* I believe in very practical engineering that > > > > > considers long > > > > term > > > > > consequences. Solving a problem a certain way now might cause > > > > > significant problems in the future. I agree this is a tradeoff > > > > > -- in my personal opinion, > > > > nothing > > > > > more, the tradeoff on this one is 100% clear. > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > ------ > > > > > > > > > > Philip Levis > > > > > President, Kumu Networks > > > > > Associate Professor, Stanford University > > > > > http://csl.stanford.edu/~pal > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Roll mailing list > > > > > Roll@ietf.org > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Roll mailing list > > > > Roll@ietf.org > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Roll mailing list > > > > Roll@ietf.org > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll > >
- [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by hop Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by… Owen Kirby
- Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by… Philip Levis
- Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by… Philip Levis
- Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by… John E Drake
- Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by… John E Drake
- Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by… Philip Levis
- Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by… Philip Levis
- Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by… Ralph Droms
- Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by… Ralph Droms
- Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by… John E Drake
- Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by… Philip Levis
- Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by… Philip Levis
- Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by… Philip Levis
- Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by… Philip Levis