Re: [Stackevo-discuss] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-welzl-irtf-iccrg-tcp-in-udp-00.txt

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Thu, 24 March 2016 17:35 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: stackevo-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: stackevo-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B6EE12D6F3 for <stackevo-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 10:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 sKXfnwpugz91 for <stackevo-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 10:35:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FB1512D6FF for <stackevo-discuss@iab.org>; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 10:35:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.9.184.148] ([128.9.184.148]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u2OHYoCI003888 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 24 Mar 2016 10:34:50 -0700 (PDT)
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
References: <A741874C-0E2C-4905-9FD3-D29B4B94A9C0@ifi.uio.no> <56F3212B.5020408@isi.edu> <20F3E6FF-DED4-46BD-BFD5-C76F8A6A8D40@ifi.uio.no> <CALx6S35n8bD6UwGT823S8dhmzncm3=B_VYrKbm0sgzv35-weRQ@mail.gmail.com> <56F32D4D.6040308@isi.edu> <CALx6S35acubkAwo4VTz5aV=96mBToMCkxQWNPucN4=xY1gnFXg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <56F42539.4080006@isi.edu>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 10:34:49 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S35acubkAwo4VTz5aV=96mBToMCkxQWNPucN4=xY1gnFXg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stackevo-discuss/W9gcHskLfAmjFc55Nn-Qdir8GmY>
Cc: stackevo-discuss@iab.org, Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>, touch@isi.edu
Subject: Re: [Stackevo-discuss] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-welzl-irtf-iccrg-tcp-in-udp-00.txt
X-BeenThere: stackevo-discuss@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Stack Evolution Discussion List <stackevo-discuss.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/stackevo-discuss>, <mailto:stackevo-discuss-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/stackevo-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:stackevo-discuss@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stackevo-discuss-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/stackevo-discuss>, <mailto:stackevo-discuss-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 17:35:42 -0000


On 3/23/2016 5:51 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 3/23/2016 4:51 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>> ...
>>> You should be able to accomplish the "same path" behavior by setting
>>> IPv6 flow label same value for different connections between same IP
>>> pair. This avoids all the unpleasantness that accompanies
>>> encapsulation.
>>
>> You would need to do IP encapsulation AND use a flow label on that
>> encaps. Otherwise, you'd have different IP addresses with the same flow
>> label - which aren't expected to do anything useful.
>>
> Oh, I guess I'm missing something.

Sorry - it was I who jumped over the "between the same IP pair" above.
If that's assumed, then setting the flow label is sufficient.

> If the (destination) addresses are
> different how does encapsulating in UDP allow packets for these
> connections to take the same path?

It wouldn't - that's what I had misread. I was just noting that merely
setting flow labels the same isn't enough - the IP addresses have to match.

Joe