[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: flow label demultiplexing



Minor correction...

El 19/04/2005, a las 14:51, marcelo bagnulo braun escribió:


El 19/04/2005, a las 13:17, Iljitsch van Beijnum escribió:

On 19-apr-05, at 11:46, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:

There are two obvious options:

1. The flow label is relevant regardless of the addresses: this can't work because of the possibility of clashes with flow labels in unrelated packets
2. The flow label is only relevant with certain source/dest address combinations: but what's the additional benefit of the flow label here, we can demultiplex on the addresses

Well, there could packets with the same src and dst address, that belong to different communications with different ULIDs, right? the flow label is to determine the proper demux context.

Under what circumstances would having different associations between the same source and destination locator sets be necessary and/or useful?



Well, i think they may occur pretty naturally, and that we probably need to do something in order to avoid it from happening.

this is not exactly what i meant... what i mean is that this situation would occur unless the protocol is designed in a way to avoid it. I am not advocating for avoiding it though....


Sorry for the wording...

marcelo


Correct me if i wrong in the next scenario:

Node A has IPA1 and IPA2
Node B has IPB

Two communications are initiated between the nodes. Because no address is preselected, one of the communications is using IPA1 and IPB as ULIDs and the other one is using IPA2 and IPB as ULIDs. Now an outage occurs affecting IPA1 and the communication involving IPA1 and IPB is moved to the alternative locator i.e. IPA2.

At this point, packets corresponding to any of the communications contain the same addresses, IPA2 and IPB, and they need to be demultiplexed.

I guess we could came up with more complex scenarios where the locators used are not being used as ULIDs in any of the established communications.

Makes sense?

regards, marcelo