IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers - Load Balancer

Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> Mon, 27 July 2020 09:48 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 36F243A1811; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 02:48:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 NbhsPFv7oMon; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 02:48:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B35823A1818; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 02:48:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml713-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id E39F26D2A37EC634A1C9; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 10:48:32 +0100 (IST)
Received: from msceml702-chm.china.huawei.com (10.219.141.160) by lhreml713-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.64) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 10:48:32 +0100
Received: from msceml703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.219.141.161) by msceml702-chm.china.huawei.com (10.219.141.160) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 12:48:31 +0300
Received: from msceml703-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.219.141.161]) by msceml703-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.219.141.161]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.007; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 12:48:31 +0300
From: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops@ietf.org" <draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers - Load Balancer
Thread-Index: AdZj9Efrgvrnr0hITbeSprlQeXLX0///1qSA///Jo9A=
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 09:48:31 +0000
Message-ID: <56e20bc1907f4bc094ab568dd8032f70@huawei.com>
References: <b380408712364589a45ab9f39ab6f764@huawei.com> <d1bf5873-4d44-d948-eb09-2c3e2e29be2f@si6networks.com>
In-Reply-To: <d1bf5873-4d44-d948-eb09-2c3e2e29be2f@si6networks.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.200.156]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/LVthfIkOkYNPiv61oDpStJdA42M>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers - Load Balancer
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 09:48:36 -0000

Hi Fernando,
Sorry, I do not believe that LB is doing ECMP - it is much more clever.
And yes, you could rewrite section 5.1.2 that it would be not about "ECMP-only". It is potential option to proceed.
But looking to the detalization that you have given already to other small use cases in section 5.1 - it is more logical to have LB separate. IMHO.
Eduard
-----Original Message-----
From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fgont@si6networks.com] 
Sent: 27 июля 2020 г. 12:32
To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>; IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers - Load Balancer

Hello, Eduard,

On 27/7/20 06:08, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:
> Hi Fernando,
> Hence again, following the logic of this draft (the level of detalization that you have given to 5.1) - may be you need additional section 5.1.x: Load Balancer have to look into TCP/UDP ports. 

You mean anything else of the coverage we already have for ECMP?



> Moreover, it could not trust "Flow label" - it is not reliable practice for LB.

Could you please elaborate?  Are you referring to the fact that some host implementations might not set the Flow Label? Something else?

Thanks!

Cheers,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email