Re: Flow label - the problem

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>]

On 21-apr-2005, at 16:00, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> > You still need to work your way through each packet to see if  
> > there  is a header, so it's still bad even if the header isn't  
> > there...

> Er, every node has to step through all Next Headers anyway, whether or
> not there is an extra header there.

Yes, but not necessarily at this point. Presumably, the shim address  
remapping will happen early in the processing of a packet, while  
scanning the full list of extension headers happens much later.

> If incoming traffic for virtual address X in a rack of servers is
> assigned dynamically when a new session starts, it may be assigned
> to different boxes for different sessions. Same thing for virtual
> address Y and virtual address Z. So you end up with {X,Y} and {X,Z}
> being locator 2-tuples for two different boxes, and then {X,Y,Z} is  
> not
> a valid locator 3-tuple. The fact that locator sets intersect does
> not mean that you can form their union.

I see no reason why we would have to support configurations like  
this. If people want to do this, it's their job to sort out the  
problems.