Re: [v6ops] [tcpm] Flow Label Load Balancing

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Thu, 03 December 2020 19:42 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 4FD4D3A0C01; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 11:42:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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 mYbz3k9XNrk3; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 11:42:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C28343A0BCC; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 11:42:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:8164:9c91:27c0:253d:5241] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:8164:9c91:27c0:253d:5241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6304B283B84; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 19:42:34 +0000 (UTC)
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, tcpm <tcpm@ietf.org>
References: <CAEGSd=DY8t8Skor+b6LSopzecoUUzUZhti9s0kdooLZGxPEt+w@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S37t4jump6S-R5_xdo5DF+RnHtT4rU5-RuiC-2GQ0PXxkQ@mail.gmail.com> <96b6d04b-e5bb-ba79-0281-e9599109be95@gont.com.ar> <CALx6S34uCrA1QdvLV8fpRKaJGLWMgtCmBCnrsBjU3TS+kXUs3Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2xn_+7EVpjGyEU3aAdBmt1h=a4MPXFjjoTi_JeM2w9pkg@mail.gmail.com> <f66cbccd-55ed-375b-743b-7fc6c48a50c2@gont.com.ar> <CAO42Z2xqU4gs9iP=u_0Z16Qk+U24_YH0h5vTmJRJ5XZXZ0nweQ@mail.gmail.com> <0d38980a-f1c5-fac5-a9b1-0711d61353d1@gont.com.ar> <CAEGSd=A_e-db8m2VN+2wEuXj9e+GTq7brYfY_fwW7tysUr19Ng@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S34xQF-PHQRqom_O8=amoRFmVrzHL-qh8765mtr1XnF2Wg@mail.gmail.com> <d59e1785-672d-8cc7-f844-51c64a440a57@gont.com.ar> <CALx6S373yLJwHigv4Yo-xdtRkZ9YsB0J9cwXqy0BWpwXSiHCPg@mail.gmail.com> <42b6e327-08b5-292b-be65-28f1a8508a69@si6networks.com> <CAMGpriUb3WQqFhtDULy=Avbf8dWh1LsO=LBfvGUf3ozBAg7myA@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S373gk+GweWm=ph8fHgSk7rDPGQCXjdC++G6Jk2NGo1x-A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <148b6caf-0eba-3e3b-9826-e57036e4e748@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 16:40:21 -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: <CALx6S373gk+GweWm=ph8fHgSk7rDPGQCXjdC++G6Jk2NGo1x-A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/iZSpgZNUmc0tXA4tN2vCoRCBQMo>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [tcpm] Flow Label Load Balancing
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: Thu, 03 Dec 2020 19:42:49 -0000

On 3/12/20 14:30, Tom Herbert wrote:
[....]
> 
> There are two apropos statements in RFC6437:
> 
> "There is no way to verify whether a flow label has been modified en
> route or whether it belongs to a uniform distribution.  Therefore, no
> Internet-wide mechanism can depend mathematically on unmodified and
> uniformly distributed flow labels; they have a "best effort" quality."
> 
> "From an upper-layer viewpoint, a flow could consist of all packets in
> one direction of a specific transport connection or media stream.
> However, a flow is not necessarily 1:1 mapped to a transport
> connection."
> 
> So building a load balancer, or any other intermediate network device,
> that *depends* on the flow label to be consistent for the life of a
> transport connection and 1:1 mapped to a transport connection is
> contrary to this guidance. 

We don't need 1:1. We just need 1:N where N is how flows would be 
aggregated/grouped for the purpose of load-sharing.



> The ship has already sailed on this in
> deployment, and even if the protocol requirements were to be
> sufficiently tightened that would take years to reach full effect and
> that would preclude other use cases where modifying the flow label is
> useful. If a stable 1:1 mapped identifier for transport ports is
> needed in the network layer, it might make sense to create a new HBH
> option for that.

The above said, I would probably agree that if havinga non-stable FL 
breaks something, whatever it breaks is probably already broken, since 
there's not even a checksum to try to detect whether the IPv6 header has 
been corrupted.



> Personally, if I were building a load balancer I'd
> use neither the flow label nor transport ports for entropy, I'd look
> at using the destination address since 128 bits allows plenty of bits
> of entropy, it's consistent per transport flow and always set in an
Problem is that if you have two systems that need a lot of banswitdth 
(e.g., they are transferring file via several TCP connections)< you 
wouldn't be able to load-share them -- since the result of the hash 
would be the sme for all TCP connections....

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