Subject: RE: Flow Label discussion

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 10:57:18 -0600

good idea.  how about each person write short abstract and send to the list
not more than two paragraphs and one is better?  I for one may not be able
to do that till end of week or on sunday night from hotel?

thx
/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Steve Deering [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday,March 14,2001 11:16 AM
> To: Erik Nordmark
> Cc: [email-masked]; Bob Hinden
> Subject: Re: Flow Label discussion
> 
> 
> At 12:09 PM +0100 3/14/01, Erik Nordmark wrote:
> >Thus before the WG can actually make any decisions about flow label
> >semantics I think we need to have folks write up the different
> >problem statements for which they see the flow label as a 
> potential solution.
> >Then the WG can decide which problem(s) are the most 
> important to solve
> >and whether or not using the flow label is the best 
> solution. That would
> >then hopefully lead to nailing down the semantics of the flow label.
> >
> >So having the discussion you propose is fine, but please 
> keep the problem
> >statements in mind.
> 
> Excellent point, Erik.  Clearly, we don't have time for much 
> writing up
> before the meeting, but those of you who wish to make presentations
> should include a description of what problems you are trying to solve,
> why those are essential problems to solve, and why using the IPv6 Flow
> Label is the best or only way to solve them.  It would be good if our
> discussion helps to focus the problem space and the set of potential
> solutions, so there will be fewer drafts that need to be written and
> argued about afterwards.  (Well, one can hope... :-)
> 
> Steve
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
> IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
> FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
> Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Masafumi OE <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 18:25:56 +0900

Hello,

Could do you give me 10 minutes to talk and discuss about my IPv6 
traceback idea?
This technique is routers mark own address and previous hop's address 
that is divided on flow label.  

Nodes can make paths from a lot of IPv6 packets with the flow label.
I guess this idea is effective for finding DDoS attacker using faked 
source address.

Because I am a newcomer person, I leave the judgment whether to giving 
valuable time for me to the chair. 

As a judgment material, my proposal will be uploaded in webpage by Saturday.

Thank you.

--
Masafumi Oe, NAIST, WIDE, JAPAN.

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 10:52:37 +0100 (CET)

This would seem to fall under the ITRACE WG as far as I can tell.

  Erik

>----- Begin Included Message -----<

Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 18:25:56 +0900
From: "Masafumi OE" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Flow Label discussion
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
[email-masked]

Hello,

Thank you.

>----- End Included Message -----<

---

From: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 20:32:25 +0900

>This would seem to fall under the ITRACE WG as far as I can tell.

	his way uses flowlabel as hop-by-hop modifiable field.  what kind of
	proposals should be presented in flowlabel special session then?

itojun

---

From: Steve Deering <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 00:21:15 -0800

>	proposals should be presented in flowlabel special session then?

One possible answer: only proposals that use the flow label field to
label flows.  If we open it up to a discussion of all possible uses for
a spare 20 bits in the header, we'll never reach any useful conclusions.
Note, however, that we may possibly conclude that it's not very important
to have an IPv6 header field that labels flows after all, in which case
the field would then become reserved and subject to alternative proposals
(though in my personal opinion, spare bits are just an invitation to
unnecessary featuritis).

If you don't like that answer, please let us know.  We aim to serve.

Steve

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 17:28:52 +0900

>If you don't like that answer, please let us know.  We aim to serve.

	I'm okay with the above answer, and I understand the timing constraints
	(of course I would like to hear from masa about it).

	but now I have other questions -
	(1) what is "flow" here, and (2) if people agree with the definition
	of "flow" in RFC2460 appendix A (first paragraph), why would people
	want the field to be hop-by-hop modifyable?

	the following does not seem like an "identification of flow" to me.

>   (2) a mutable value that can be or will be modified hop-by-hop,
>       like an ATM virtual circuit identifier or an MPLS label.

itojun

---

From: Steve Deering <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 08:21:01 -0800

> >       like an ATM virtual circuit identifier or an MPLS label.

That's the kind of thing ATM/MPLS switches use to identify which packets
belong to which flows (circuits, streams, whatever you want to call them).

Steve