nanog mailing list archives
Re: ECN
From: Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 13:06:36 +0200
On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 at 22:57, Lukas Tribus <lists () ltri eu> wrote:
In fact I believe everything beyond the 5-tuple is just a bad idea to base your hash on. Here are some examples (not quite as straight forward than the TOS/ECN case here):
ACK.
TTL: https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2018-September/096871.html
IPv6 flow label: https://blog.apnic.net/2018/01/11/ipv6-flow-label-misuse-hashing/ https://pc.nanog.org/static/published/meetings/NANOG71/1531/20171003_Jaeggli_Lightning_Talk_Ipv6_v1.pdf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0CRjOpnT7w
It is unfortunate IPv6 flow label is so poorly specified, had it been specified clearly it could have been very very good for the Internet. Crucially sender should be able to instruct transit HOW to hash, there should be flags in flow label used by sender to indicate that flow label must be used for hash exclusively, not at all, inclusively with what ever host otherwise uses. This would give sender control over what is discreet flow. Something like this https://ytti.github.io/flow-label/draft-ytti-v6ops-flow-label.html would have been nice, but unclear if it would be possible to deliver post-fact -- ++ytti
Current thread:
- Re: ECN, (continued)
- Re: ECN Saku Ytti (Nov 13)
- Re: ECN William Herrin (Nov 13)
- Re: ECN Lukas Tribus (Nov 13)
- Re: ECN Saku Ytti (Nov 14)
- Re: ECN Tore Anderson (Nov 13)
- Re: ECN Warren Kumari (Nov 13)
- TCP and anycast (was Re: ECN) Anoop Ghanwani (Nov 13)
- Re: TCP and anycast (was Re: ECN) Bill Woodcock (Nov 14)
- Re: TCP and anycast (was Re: ECN) William Herrin (Nov 14)
- Re: TCP and anycast (was Re: ECN) Randy Bush (Nov 14)
- Re: TCP and anycast (was Re: ECN) Christopher Morrow (Nov 14)
- Re: TCP and anycast (was Re: ECN) Randy Bush (Nov 14)