Re: wildcard flowid in framework PIB?

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>]

>>>>> Wijnen, Bert (Bert) writes:

Bert> I think FlowIdOrAny is the better name for a TC.  The reason is,
Bert> that the wildcard value does not always have to mean that the
Bert> flowID is to be ignored.

Agreed.

Bert> The TC would/should look as follows I think:

[...]

I would prefer to use -1 as a special value rather than using
4294967295. So what I would like to see defined are the following
two TCs:

  FlowId TECTUAL-CONVENTION
      DISPLAY-HINT "d"
      STATUS       current
      DESCRIPTION 
	"The flow identifier in an IPv6 header that may be used to
	 discriminate traffic flows."
      REFERENCE
	"RFC 2460"
      SYNTAX       Unsigned32 (0..1048575)

  FlowIdOrAny TECTUAL-CONVENTION
      DISPLAY-HINT "d"
      STATUS       current
      DESCRIPTION 
	"The flow identifier in an IPv6 header that may be used to
	 discriminate traffic flows. The value of -1 is used to
	 indicate a wildcard, i.e. any value."
      REFERENCE
	"RFC 2460"
      SYNTAX       Unsigned32 (-1 | 0..1048575)

Open issues:

- Is the flow identifier the same as the flow label? I guess so. If
  this is true, then we should probably use the TC names FlowLabel
  and FlowLableOrAny and also change the wordings in the description
  clause.

- The name of the MIB modules which will contain these definitions.

- Since Fred kind of said that the diffServMultiFieldClfrFlowId
  object should have had a wildcard, can we agree that this is 
  actually a bug in RFC 3289 which will be fixed by using FlowIdOrAny
  in the next revision of the DIFFSERV-MIB?

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder    <http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/>