Re: [Spud] FW: New Version Notification for draft-hildebrand-spud-prototype-02.txt

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 3/3/15, 7:28 PM, "Ted Hardie" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> >The draft currently asks whether the Tube ID should be scoped to a single
> source address or not.  My preference is to stick to a single 5-tuple now,
> as in the common case, the path may change with a change in source address.
> >
> >There is still some chance that a changing privacy address in V6-land
> would not, but let's not optimize for that just now.
>
> I'm ok with that for now.  The next question then is if the Tube ID adds
> any value at all?  Is the source sockaddr_in[6] enough?  We could save some
> bytes.
>
> ​I don't think it is enough, because you still need to disambiguate flows
that go between the same endpoints but are different tubes.  The explicit
identifiers allow you to make statements about their relationships more
easily (think about the ordinal ranking use case, where a video app wants
to say "this thumbnail flow is more important than the full-resolution
flow")

​These aren't the bytes to save, in my opinion.

Ted​




> --
> Joe Hildebrand
>
>
>
>