Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops-05

Fernando Gont <> Sat, 20 February 2021 10:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D71293A0E73; Sat, 20 Feb 2021 02:01:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.309
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.309 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=1.592, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gUTrh-C83pAD; Sat, 20 Feb 2021 02:01:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3444A3A0E70; Sat, 20 Feb 2021 02:01:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:cc90:3a89:34f0:5ee6] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:cc90:3a89:34f0:5ee6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EA7DF2803F2; Sat, 20 Feb 2021 10:01:32 +0000 (UTC)
To: Gorry Fairhurst <>,
References: <> <> <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2021 02:57:17 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops-05
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2021 10:01:51 -0000

Hi, Gorry,

On 19/2/21 06:30, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
> TSV-ART reviews are for our transport ADs's, so they will look at this 
> in IETF-LC.

Always keen for improvements, anyway!

>>> * The ID also discusses use of the IPv6 Flow Label: This seems a 
>>> little off
>>> topic, but seems linked to EH implications on ECMP.  However, the final
>>> sentence of this section is a reference to [Jaeggli-2018] which in turn
>>> concludes that the IPv6 Flow Label should not be used it as a part of 
>>> hashes
>>> for load balancing. Yet, as far as I know, this is not the 
>>> recommendation of
>>> the IETF in 2020. 
>> FWIW, we discuss the Flow Label a bit because the usual reaction would 
>> be "why do you process the header chain for load-balancing, instead of 
>> employing the Flow Label?"
> Thanks - I see. Brian's Carpenter's suggestion would also help avoid 
> misinterpretation.

Cool. We'll apply both.

>>> * A definition would be helpful for /RLDRAM/.
>> Would a reference to  do the 
>> trick?  Or were you just suggesting to expand the acronym?
> I'd suggest to avoid the URL to wikipedia (people can easily find that - 
> or a more concrete reference, but need to be certain of the term). To be 
> clear, I was more expecting a simple expansion:
> "Reduced Latency DRAM (RLDRAM)"

Fair enough. I'll expand the acronym.  (I agree with you about Wikipedia)

>>> * There are many types and sizes of routers, is this true of all routers
>>> (including low-end) or could this better reflect some type of 
>>> routers? So,
>>> maybe the following statements could use better words than /most 
>>> contemporary
>>> routers/? /Most contemporary routers use dedicated hardware/ … and 
>>> later: /Most
>>> contemporary routers have a fast hardware-assisted forwarding plane/
>> You mean something like "carrier-grade router"?
> That would be much better, or something similar that differentiates this 
> from AP's, desktop routers, etc.

Fair enough. I'll incorporate "carrier-grade router" unless anybody can 
come up with a better term.


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