No, I mean "Does this violate the gi-ds-lite spec which assumes one tunnel between GW and AFTR?"
On 9/23/10 7:15 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2010-09-24 09:42, Yiu L. Lee wrote: >> I am ready to send the question to 6man. Before doing this, I got a question >> for GI-DS-lite. The spec assumes that there is a single pt-to-pt tunnel from >> the GW to AFTR. If we use Flow Label, the BRAS will have a pt-to-mp tunnel >> from BRAS to AFTR (each CPE will have a dedicated IP-in-IPv6 tunnel). Will >> this violate the spec? > > Isn't the real question whether this will add an unreasonable amount > of state to the AFTR? > > Brian > >> >> >> On 9/14/10 1:41 PM, "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Yiu, >>> >>>>> ...FB: Well, the concern is a more general one. I'm not disagreeing >>>> that we >>>>> might be able to have flow policies even with the new use of the >>> flow >>>> label. >>>>> The thing that I think requires more discussion is whether people >>> see >>>> a need >>>>> for using the IPv6 flow label in the core of their network, even if >>>> GI-DS-lite >>>>> with this new encapsulation would be used within the very same >>>> deployment. If >>>>> there is such a use, the new encap might create challenges... - >>> which >>>> we >>>>> should understand upfront. I don't know all the foreseen use-cases >>>> for the >>>>> flow label, hence my earlier question on whether the question has >>>> been taken >>>>> to a larger audience (especially 6man). >>>>> >>>> I don't disagree, but the ip address used by the CPE is only used by >>>> the CPE >>>> sourced traffic, this is why I think it is safe to be used. One can >>>> consider >>>> all the IPv4 traffic of a household is a flow (for encap). In this >>>> setup, >>>> this is rather true and should not affect other flow label for native >>>> v6 >>>> traffic. >>>> >>>> I also want to hear more inputs. This is why I moved this discussion >>> to >>>> the >>>> mailing list. We will also post this question to 6man. >>>> >>> ... FB: Great, and thanks for widening the audience. BTW/ - one could >>> construct (theoretical) use cases, where the use of the flow label as >>> CID would at least change network behavior, e.g. imagine that a provider >>> would use ECMP and the hash would include the flow label (as initially >>> anticipated when the flow label was introduced). With the assumption of >>> SA and DA (Gateway and AFTR) being the same for all flows, the hash of >>> the flow label would determine ECMP behavior - desirable or not, it >>> would have an impact. So am curious to see whether there are real use >>> cases out there. >>> >>> Thanks, Frank >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Softwires mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >> _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
