Re: [v6ops] draft-cc-v6ops-wlcg-flow-label-marking-00.txt

Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> Fri, 30 June 2023 06:48 UTC

Return-Path: <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90B10C14CE4B for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Jun 2023 23:48:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wzV3_-nt5CJ6 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Jun 2023 23:48:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42CD0C14CEFA for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Jun 2023 23:48:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mscpeml100001.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.226]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4Qsm89186Zz6J692; Fri, 30 Jun 2023 14:47:05 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com (7.188.26.142) by mscpeml100001.china.huawei.com (7.188.26.227) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.27; Fri, 30 Jun 2023 09:48:36 +0300
Received: from mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com ([7.188.26.142]) by mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com ([7.188.26.142]) with mapi id 15.01.2507.027; Fri, 30 Jun 2023 09:48:36 +0300
From: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "Dale W. Carder" <dwcarder@es.net>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-cc-v6ops-wlcg-flow-label-marking-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHZqsNYpjclVKDVYkaQZe9BD9IAlq+iMFwAgAC25nA=
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2023 06:48:36 +0000
Message-ID: <1ab3e6e8b4c1413fbc78340bd58e86e2@huawei.com>
References: <ZJ3g8L16euGgDLuI@dwc-desktop.local> <9e2081c4-896f-9a7b-71e3-5a88457d4659@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <9e2081c4-896f-9a7b-71e3-5a88457d4659@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.199.56.242]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/IuPK8qrvJjqW1jNE4Ok4VPTSguI>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-cc-v6ops-wlcg-flow-label-marking-00.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2023 06:48:45 -0000

Any hash function must be close to "discrete uniform distribution"
Or else it would be a great help to crack it.
Ed/
-----Original Message-----
From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2023 1:50 AM
To: Dale W. Carder <dwcarder@es.net>; v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-cc-v6ops-wlcg-flow-label-marking-00.txt

Hi Dale,

Thanks for documenting this.

As well as the impact on ECMP/LAG (where you might add a reference to RFC 6438), could you also mention the impact on server load balancing (RFC 7098)? The real issue here is that with only 5 random bits, the probability of two very large flows hashing to the same path or server is higher than we'd like. But since the WLCG flows are *all* very large, this presumably doesn't matter so much in your use case?

I'd never thought about using a Hamming code to generate flow labels.
But since a given flow must use the same flow label throughout, you can only use the regular 5-tuple as input to the Hamming code. I don't believe that a Hamming code will give you a discrete uniform distribution, but I'm not an expert in that area. An expert known as ChatGPT says:
"No, a Hamming code does not produce a discrete uniform distribution...
The non-uniformity of the distribution arises from the fact that Hamming codes prioritize error detection and correction capabilities over uniformity of codeword distribution."

So I think that simply using a stateless hash is the best way. These days I like FNV (draft-eastlake-fnv) which is easy and cheap to implement.

Regards
    Brian Carpenter

On 30-Jun-23 07:52, Dale W. Carder wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> We have submitted this draft documenting our experimental use of the
> IPv6 flow label for packet marking and the considerations we had made 
> along the way that sort of got us to this point.
> 
> I'm hoping we could get some initial discussion underway here before 
> IETF 117.  Thanks!
> 
> Dale
> 
> ----- Forwarded message from internet-drafts@ietf.org -----
>> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2023 12:18:53 -0700
>> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
>> Subject: New Version Notification for 
>> draft-cc-v6ops-wlcg-flow-label-marking-00.txt
>>
>>
>> A new version of I-D, draft-cc-v6ops-wlcg-flow-label-marking-00.txt
>> has been successfully submitted by Dale W. Carder and posted to the 
>> IETF repository.
>>
>> Name:		draft-cc-v6ops-wlcg-flow-label-marking
>> Revision:	00
>> Title:		Use of the IPv6 Flow Label for WLCG Packet Marking
>> Document date:	2023-06-29
>> Group:		Individual Submission
>> Pages:		15
>> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-cc-v6ops-wlcg-flow-label-marking-00.txt
>> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cc-v6ops-wlcg-flow-label-marking/
>> Html:           https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-cc-v6ops-wlcg-flow-label-marking-00.html
>> Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-cc-v6ops-wlcg-flow-label-marking
>>
>>
>> Abstract:
>>     This document describes an experimentally deployed approach currently
>>     used within the Worldwide Large Hadron Collider Computing Grid (WLCG)
>>     to mark packets with their project (experiment) and application.  The
>>     marking uses the 20-bit IPv6 Flow Label in each packet, with 15 bits
>>     used for semantics and 5 bits for entropy.  Alternatives, in
>>     particular use of IPv6 Extension Headers (EH), were considered but
>>     found to not be practical.  The WLCG is one of the largest worldwide
>>     research communities and has adopted IPv6 heavily for movement of
>>     many tens of PB of data annually, with the ultimate goal of running
>>     IPv6 only.
>>
>>                                                                                    
>>
>>
>> The IETF Secretariat
>>
>>
> 
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops