Re: [Softwires] A General Question for Flow Label Usage

"Yiu L. Lee" <yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com> Tue, 24 August 2010 11:43 UTC

Return-Path: <yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E7C23A67DB for <softwires@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 04:43:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.243
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.243 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.425, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dYE6gq2D-Y6Y for <softwires@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 04:43:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cable.comcast.com (copdcimo01.potomac.co.ndcwest.comcast.net [76.96.32.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1AAD3A67A4 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 04:34:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([147.191.124.12]) by copdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP with TLS id 5503630.7216952; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 05:40:28 -0600
Received: from PAOAKEXCSMTP02.cable.comcast.com (10.52.116.31) by copdcexhub01.cable.comcast.com (147.191.124.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.0.702.0; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 05:34:55 -0600
Received: from PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com ([24.40.15.86]) by PAOAKEXCSMTP02.cable.comcast.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 24 Aug 2010 07:34:54 -0400
Received: from 69.241.25.0 ([69.241.25.0]) by PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com ([24.40.15.86]) via Exchange Front-End Server legacywebmail.comcast.com ([24.40.8.152]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 11:34:53 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.26.0.100708
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 07:34:49 -0400
From: "Yiu L. Lee" <yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C8992699.30EC7%yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com>
Thread-Topic: [Softwires] A General Question for Flow Label Usage
Thread-Index: ActDgFwV1MFmEAimd0iUKwC+CCSKOA==
In-Reply-To: <4C533CBF.2080408@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Aug 2010 11:34:54.0535 (UTC) FILETIME=[5F626570:01CB4380]
Cc: softwires@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] A General Question for Flow Label Usage
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 11:43:07 -0000

I want to follow up this topic on the list. I exchanged few off-listed
emails with Brian to ask his opinion of using flow label. It seem the way
the ER to encapsulate every packet of a given host is a compatible use of
flow label. Brian, can you confirm that please?

Thanks,
Yiu


On 7/30/10 4:57 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> In RFC 3697, it says:
>>> 
>>> "A flow is a sequence of packets sent from a particular source to a
>>>    particular unicast, anycast, or multicast destination that the source
>>>    desires to label as a flow."
>>> 
>>> It later says the usage of a flow:
>>> 
>>> "The usage of the 3-tuple of the Flow Label and the Source and
>>>    Destination Address fields enables efficient IPv6 flow
>>>    classification, where only IPv6 main header fields in fixed positions
>>>    are used."
>>> 
>>> I am confused why we can't use a flow label to effectively identify a flow
>>> from a host behind a CPE in the AFTR. In what part this usage is against the
>>> specification?
> 
> The devil is in the details. You'd have to define the use case completely
> before I (as a co-author of 3697) would try to answer the question.
> 
> The use case still has to work with hosts that do not set a flow label,
> which is of course essentially all of them today.
> 
>    Brian