Yes, I know which WG this is, and I would like to test a
hypothesis here: that the draft below is incompatible with
RFC 6437 (and the long discussion that led to it).

The problem, if there is one, lies in section 4 of RFC 6437.

>    A node that sets the flow label MAY also take part in a flow state
>    establishment method that results in assigning specific treatments to
>    specific flows, possibly including signaling.  

That's OK - nodes using -ospf-dst-flowlabel-routing would be doing that.

>    Any such method MUST
>    NOT disturb nodes taking part in the stateless scenario just
>    described.  Thus, any node that sets flow label values according to a
>    stateful scheme MUST choose labels that conform to Section 3 of this
>    specification.  Further details are not discussed in this document.

That's the bit that -ospf-dst-flowlabel-routing does not conform to, as
far as I can see.

Regards
   Brian

On 03/05/2013 06:39, [email protected] wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
> directories.
> 
> 
>       Title           : Using OSPFv3 with Role-Based Access Control
>       Author(s)       : Fred Baker
>       Filename        : draft-baker-ipv6-ospf-dst-flowlabel-routing-01.txt
>       Pages           : 10
>       Date            : 2013-05-02
> 
> Abstract:
>    This note describes the changes necessary for OSPFv3 to route classes
>    of IPv6 traffic that are defined by an IPv6 Flow Label and a
>    destination prefix.  This implies not simply routing "to a
>    destination", but "traffic going to that destination AND using a
>    specified flow label".  It may be combined with other qualifying
>    attributes, such as "traffic going to that destination AND using a
>    specified flow label AND from a specified source prefix".  The
>    obvious application is data center inter-tenant routing using a form
>    of role-based access control.  If the sender doesn't know the value
>    to insert in the flow label (the receiver's tenant ID), it in effect
>    has no route to that destination, thus providing an access list that
>    is as changeable and scalable as routing.
> 
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-baker-ipv6-ospf-dst-flowlabel-routing
> 
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-ipv6-ospf-dst-flowlabel-routing-01
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-baker-ipv6-ospf-dst-flowlabel-routing-01
> 
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to