[v6ops] Re: The V6OPS WG has placed draft-cc-v6ops-wlcg-flow-label-marking in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

[Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 3:56 PM Nick Buraglio
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Reminder - this draft still has an open adoption call. So far we have
> little response. Please read and comment should this be of interest to
> you.

Some comments

I think this is (hopefully) intended to be a short term solution (that
borders on being slightly hacky). My personal preference is to fix EH
to work, it just seems that if we continually try to find creative,
but somehow deficient workarounds to EH, then we'll never move things
forward.

"In our testing, these issues are no less common in Research and
Education networks."

Can you provide more information on this? Also, as "research" networks
it seems like there might be more latitude to be cutting edge and fix
problems with things like EH?

"In this packet marking scheme, all traffic belonging to the same
community and activity will carry a flow label with 15 fixed, common
bits and 5 varying (entropy) bits."

So 5 and 15 are manifest constants. I wonder if those are correct or
even sufficient. Also, if we go down this path, it's almost a
certainty that other use cases of standard flow labels will be
proposed, the problem with that is that there's no code point in the
packet that identifies the format and it's unlikely we could put a
type field in the 20-bits for that.

"The Destination option header could therefore be a logical choice to
place activity-specific telemetry identifiers, as there is less of a
constraint on space than the IPv6 Flow Label, less history of defined
pre-existing intentions from the standards body, and low deployed
usage on the Internet."

Yes. I'd also note that the drop rate for DestOpts is lower than HBH.

"There has been a set of patches made that could address this as well
as extend the functionality, though they have not been met with
support from the linux network maintainers."

Right, I need to push those again, there's no fundamental reason why
these wouldn't be accepted upstream (this is part of fixing bugs in EH
that we've already started doing). @authors, if you'd like to discuss
more status of these patches please contact me off thread.

Tom






>
> nb
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 6, 2024 at 4:52 PM Brian E Carpenter
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > I support the adoption of this draft as Informational. Its discussion
> > of deviations from RFC 6437 is helpful.
> >
> > Regards
> >     Brian Carpenter
> >
> > On 07-Jul-24 10:09, IETF Secretariat wrote:
> > >
> > > The V6OPS WG has placed draft-cc-v6ops-wlcg-flow-label-marking in state
> > > Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Nick Buraglio)
> > >
> > > The document is available at
> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cc-v6ops-wlcg-flow-label-marking/
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > v6ops mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]