Download Flow label for equal cost multipath routing in tunnels

Survey
yes no Was this document useful for you?
   Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Document related concepts

Water metering wikipedia , lookup

Navier–Stokes equations wikipedia , lookup

Lift (force) wikipedia , lookup

Bernoulli's principle wikipedia , lookup

Wind tunnel wikipedia , lookup

Computational fluid dynamics wikipedia , lookup

Flow measurement wikipedia , lookup

Reynolds number wikipedia , lookup

Turbulence wikipedia , lookup

Flow conditioning wikipedia , lookup

Aerodynamics wikipedia , lookup

Fluid dynamics wikipedia , lookup

Compressible flow wikipedia , lookup

Rheology wikipedia , lookup

Transcript
Flow label for equal cost
multipath routing in tunnels
draft-carpenter-flow-ecmp-02
Brian Carpenter
University of Auckland
Shane Amante
Level 3 Communications, LLC
July 2010
1
The problem with tunnels
Path1
Source TEP
ECMP
Router
Dest TEP
Path2
Normal traffic split
by ECMP.
Tunnel traffic all has
same 5-tuple; no split.
2
Proposed solution
 
For foo-in-IPv6 tunnels, the source TEP sets a flow
label per user flow in the outer packet
- 
- 
 
 
For IP-in-IPv6, the flow label is based on the 5-tuple of the
inner packet
It should be well distributed (pseudo-random)
Intermediate ECMP or LAG paths use hash based on
6-tuple, the normal 5-tuple plus the flow label
- 
works the same as before for non-tunnel traffic (and even
better if flow label is set)
- 
also splits tunnel traffic
- 
fully conformant with RFC 3697
Caveat: would not work in Inter-AS scenarios if the
IPv6 flow label is allowed to be ‘mutable’ …
3
Changes from -01 to -02
 
 
 
 
Provided further background information
Incorporated LAG (Link Aggregation)
Changed to BCP language in Section 3,
“Guidelines” to provide better guidance
Added new co-author
Next Steps
 
Adopt as WG draft?
Thank you!