IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Mon, 27 July 2020 09:32 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 0DA8E3A17FA; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 02:32:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 E-ItahqEmju1; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 02:32:56 -0700 (PDT)
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 C9F9E3A17F7; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 02:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:1f7:4ccc:6def:a83b:96ef] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:1f7:4ccc:6def:a83b:96ef]) (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 3C1C028390A; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 09:32:51 +0000 (UTC)
To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.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>
References: <b380408712364589a45ab9f39ab6f764@huawei.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <d1bf5873-4d44-d948-eb09-2c3e2e29be2f@si6networks.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 06:31:47 -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: <b380408712364589a45ab9f39ab6f764@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/laKanPR3Ct2s79nqYqaDUYvNIxM>
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 09:32:59 -0000

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