L3DSR server side bits open sourced

Shane Amante shane at castlepoint.net
Wed Mar 9 09:12:53 CST 2011

On Mar 9, 2011, at 00:35 MST, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2011, Randy Bush wrote:
> :: a real use for the diffserv bits!  why not flowlabel in 6?  it's been
> :: looking for a use for a decade.
> Honestly, we figured flowlabel might actually find a use before all the
> values of diffserv will :) In all seriousness, we are starting to set the 
> spec for v6 l3dsr now, so, if you care, and believe that flowlabel would 
> be a better field to "hijack" (or have a suggestion for another, better 
> way then same DSCP methodology that we used for ipv4), we welcome input..

:-/  Please don't abuse the flow-label this way, otherwise your proposal could get added to the "graveyard of IPv6 flow-label proposals" draft:

There has been *a lot* of discussion in the 6man WG recently to (finally) define the flow-label to be: a) be stateless; and, b) potentially be useful as an input-key, when used in conjunction with {src_ip, dst_ip}, for fine-grained load-balancing over LAG & ECMP paths, (instead of the traditional IPv6 header 5-tuple).  One example where this might be useful is within Layer-2 switches, at IXP's or other parts of the network, where you'd really like them to only have to look at the 3-tuple: {src_ip, dst_ip + flow-label} as input-keys for LAG load-balancing, since they are at a fixed location in the IPv6 header.  The other, longer-term win of this approach is that hosts can be free to define, or re-define, new IPv6 Extension Headers and you won't have to worry about Core routers/switches needing to dig into those Ext. headers (or, past them) to find useful input-keys for load-balancing over LAG & ECMP paths.

Take a look at the following drafts and comment on the 6man WG mailing list if you have questions or concerns:
IPv6 Flow Label Specification -- proposed revisions to the most current (& confusing) flow-label RFC:

Using the IPv6 flow label for equal cost multipath routing and link aggregation in tunnels

Rationale for update to the IPv6 flow label specification


More information about the NANOG mailing list