[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: flow label demultiplexing
On 19-apr-05, at 14:51, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
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. 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.
Yes, this is a good example. So:
- demultiplexing packets to the right association can very likely be
done based on the address pair, but
- demultiplexing packets to the right ULIDs can't be done on addresses
alone, either this must be done based on higher layer information, the
flow label or something new
If we want to use the flow label for this we only need to change the
flow label sematics every so slightly so the flow label is unique for a
set of source/dest locators belonging to the same source and dest hosts
rather than source/dest addresses. Not too unreasonable, IMO.