[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ipng
Subject:    RFC 3697bis Open Issue 3
From:       Jarno Rajahalme <jarno.rajahalme () nsn ! com>
Date:       2011-01-31 12:40:58
Message-ID: C427925E-66F1-41E9-ADC7-BD284B3C5723 () nsn ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Issue 3:

> ISSUE 3. 3697bis RECOMMENDS pseudo-random flow label values. The goal is be able to \
>  use just the 3-tuple {dest addr, source addr, label} as input to load
> distribution hashes. There have been a couple of objections to this:
> - This property is not required for effective hashes for load distribution;
> - Not all load distribution methods are statistical, so there may be some need for
> deterministic flow label values.
> On the other hand, the arguments for formally recommending pseudo-random labels are
> that
> - pseudo-randomness has security value (draft-gont-6man-flowlabel-security);
> - pseudo-randomness does have value as input to hashes;
> - a MAY would not have much impact on implementers, so nothing would change.
> 
> QUESTION: do we change the recommendation to set pseudo-random flow label values?
> 

Change the recommendation to set pseudo-random flow label values, but also add that \
all possible re-setting of the value (e.g. on domain exit) be consistent (i.e. a \
mapping). This mapping can provide the desired randomization of the used label \
values. Also, this concept can naturally be extended to the case of zero label. In \
this case the mapping needs to be consistent for the input packet's 5-tuple. 

I provided a text proposal to this effect on the mail about issue 1 & 2.

  Jarno
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]