RE: [Diffserv] RE: FW: FlowId and FlowIdOrAny
"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email protected]> Sun, 2 Feb 2003 14:21:47 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.rap |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <AAB4B3D3CF0F454F98272CBE187FDE2F03009958@is0004avexu1.global.avaya.com> |
The -1 value is not needed in SSPM MIB. The object = sspmSourceProfileFlowLabel has a MAX-ACCESS read-create, and one MUST = specify a meaningful flow id value to be carried by the packet.=20 Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 12:14 AM > To: Sahita, Ravi; 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; Rap-wg (E-mail) > Subject: RE: [Diffserv] RE: FW: FlowId and FlowIdOrAny >=20 >=20 > Right, that seems an approach by which your RFC does not have=20 > to get held up for too long (well, at least not too much longer=20 > than has already happened).=20 > Not sure if you saw this, but I have also posted the mail > on FlowLabel and FlowLabelOrAny on the [email protected] > list, so that we get dicsussion from other MIB folk as well. > ANd I posted it to the authors of the other documents that=20 > were mentioned. >=20 > All seems to be fine except for one question. > And that is: if the range is indeed the correct one. > Let me try and drive to consensus on that on the mibs mailing > list. Pls do join in in the discussion there when you see fit. >=20 > Thanks, > Bert=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sahita, Ravi [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: donderdag 30 januari 2003 22:34 > > To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; Rap-wg (E-mail) > > Subject: RE: [Diffserv] RE: FW: FlowId and FlowIdOrAny > >=20 > >=20 > > Bert, > >=20 > > Of the choices you provided, I am tending towards this resolution=20 > > for the frwkIpFilterFlowId object. When the TCs are eventually put=20 > > in a different ID and RFC'ed, we can update the type for=20 > this object. > >=20 > > Ravi > >=20 > > frwkIpFilterFlowId OBJECT-TYPE > > SYNTAX Integer32 (-1 | 0..1048575) > > DESCRIPTION > > "The flow identifier or flow label in an IPv6 header=20 > > that may be used to discriminate traffic flows. > > The value of -1 for this attribute MUST imply that=20 > > any flow label value in the IPv6 header will match,=20 > > resulting in the flow label field of the IPv6 header=20 > > being ignored for matching this filter entry." > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > | -----Original Message----- > > | From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:[email protected]]=20 > > | Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 1:49 PM > > | To: Rap-wg (E-mail); [email protected] > > | Subject: [Diffserv] RE: FW: FlowId and FlowIdOrAny > > |=20 > > |=20 > > | I am not hearing much progress. > > |=20 > > | Appology for a long email posting. But I think it=20 > > | addresses all the issues and occurences of flowId > > | or flowLabel (at least till someone tells me they > > | found yet another one ;-)) > > |=20 > > | The biggest problem exists for the RAP WG document > > | for the framework PIB, cause it is in RFC 48-hour > > | author call (for over a month already). > > |=20 > > | The DIFFSERV PIB (also in RFC 38-hour author call > > | for the same amount of time) of course cannot be > > | published since it depends on the framework pib. > > |=20 > > | The issue at hand is the question on how to specify > > | that a flowID be ignored (wild-carded) for a filter. > > | I think we've come to the conclusion that both the > > | MIB and the PIB solutions need this. So we need > > | a common solution. > > |=20 > > | We've also found 3 other places where a flowID=20 > > | or a flowLabel (but the same thing is meant) is > > | being used. That is in: > > |=20 > > | - draft-ietf-ipsp-ipsec-conf-mib-05.txt > > | which uses a 3-byte octet string and that seems wrong=20 > > | SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE(3)) > > |=20 > > | - draft-ietf-rmonmib-sspm-mib-06.txt > > | which uses an Integer32: > > | SYNTAX Integer32 (0..1048575) -- 20-bit range (0=20 > to 0xfffff) > > |=20 > > | - Integrated services MIB (RFC 2213) > > | which uses INTEGER > > | SYNTAX INTEGER (0..16777215) > > |=20 > > | The Diffserv MIB (RFC3289) and the framework PIB were > > | using an Unsigned 32, namely > > | SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..1048575) > > |=20 > > | The framework PIB authors were suggesting a modification > > | SYNTAX Unsigned32 (4294967295 | 0..1048575) > > | So that the value 4294967295 would mean any (in other words > > | one would ignore the flowID in when filtering). > > |=20 > > | Fred (amin editor of the Diffserv MIB) wanted to add a=20 > > | boolean mib object to indicate if the flowID should be > > | ignored when filtering. > > |=20 > > | What I as OPS AD for the NM side see is that we have > > | - too many different ways to represent a flowID or flowLabel. > > | - there is currently no way to define a flowID or any > > | - we need need a facility to specify flowIdOrAny. > > | - we prefer to have one solution. > > | - we have some docs that are still IDs and can easily > > | be changed.=20 > > | - we have two docs that are difficult to change, namely > > | the DIFSERV and the INTEGRATED SERVICES MIB. > > | The difficulty is that if we change the encoding on the > > | wire that we need to deprecate existing object and add=20 > > | a new one. If we keep the wire encoding the same, I think > > | we can defend that it is a bug fix and the fact that some > > | potential new values are now valid is acceptable; at least > > | it would be less of a problem than having to deprecate > > | an object and add a new one. > > | - But even the two RFCs have different SYNTAX, so at least > > | one of them needs to change if we want to specify > > | flowID in a consistent way. > > |=20 > > | So what do people want to do. > > |=20 > > | My proposal is to do the following: > > |=20 > > | - Someone creates a new ID that contains a small MIB module > > | that contains two TCs: > > |=20 > > | FlowId TEXTUAL-CONVENTION > > | DISPLAY-HINT "d" > > | STATUS current > > | DESCRIPTION "The flow identifier or flow Label in an IPv6 > > | header that may be used to=20 > discriminate traffic > > | flows. > > | " > > | SYNTAX Integer32 (0..1048575) > > |=20 > > | FlowIdOrAny TEXTUAL-CONVENTION > > | DISPLAY-HINT "d" > > | STATUS current > > | DESCRIPTION "The flow identifier or flow lable in an IPv6=20 > > | header that may be used to=20 > discriminate traffic > > | flows. The value of -1 is used to indicate a > > | wildcard, i.e. any value. > > | " > > | SYNTAX Integer32 (-1 | 0..1048575) > > |=20 > > | We probably want to run this quickly by the IPv6 WG. > > |=20 > > | What it would mean for the various documents is the following: > > |=20 > > | - For the INTEGRATED-SERVICES-MIB (RFC2213), I see Fred as a=20 > > | co-author/editor..., whenever a new revision is done: > > | - import the new FlowId TC > > | - replace=20 > > | intSrvFlowFlowId OBJECT-TYPE > > | SYNTAX INTEGER (0..16777215) > > | with=20 > > | intSrvFlowFlowId OBJECT-TYPE > > | SYNTAX FlowId=20 > > | I think we can consider this a BUG fix and allow this change > > | that reduces the range of possible values. > > | - by the way, I when I see intSrvFlowIfAddr, then probably > > | we would want that to be done with the TCs from the > > | INET-ADDRESS-MIB. I also wonder about the Port TC in that > > | module > > |=20 > > | - For the DIFFSERV-MIB (RFC3289), Fred is main editor, whenever > > | a new revision is done, I think we need to: > > | - import the new FlowIdOrAny TC > > | - deprecate object diffServMultiFieldClfrFlowId > > | - define a new object diffServMultiFieldClfrFlowLabel ?? > > | or maybe diffServMultiFieldClfrFlowIdOrAny > > | with syntax FlowIdOrAny > > | - deprecate current MODULE-COMPLIANCEs, define a new one > > | to remove ... FlowId and add ...FlowLable > > |=20 > > | - For the draft-ietf-rap-frameworkpib-09.txt (or better the > > | RFC-to-be) the final fix would be to make this change: > > | - import FlowIdOrAny TC > > | - replace=20 > > | frwkIpFilterFlowId OBJECT-TYPE > > | SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..1048575) > > | with=20 > > | frwkIpFilterFlowId OBJECT-TYPE > > | SYNTAX FlowIdOrAny > > | - we can consider this as a last minute bug fix. > > | If we agree that the final change may take too long, then we > > | can make a temp fix: > > | - replace=20 > > | frwkIpFilterFlowId OBJECT-TYPE > > | SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..1048575) > > | with=20 > > | frwkIpFilterFlowId OBJECT-TYPE > > | SYNTAX Integer32 (-1 | 0..1048575) > > | DESCRIPTION "The flow identifier or flow lable=20 > in an IPv6=20 > > | header that may be used to=20 > > discriminate traffic > > | flows. The value of -1 is used to=20 > indicate a > > | wildcard, i.e. any value. > > | " > > | - whenever the RFC gets revised, then this can be replaced > > | with the final fix, cause it does not change anything on=20 > > | the wire. > > |=20 > > | - For draft-ietf-ipsp-ipsec-conf-mib-05.txt, main Editor > > | Wes Hardaker, we can fix it as follows > > | - import FlowId > > | - replace > > | ihfIPv6FlowLabel OBJECT-TYPE > > | SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE(3)) > > | with=20 > > | ihfIPv6FlowLabel OBJECT-TYPE > > | SYNTAX FlowId > > | - this is still an ID, so the change is OK. > > | Also, they use a BITS mask to indicate if the flowlabel > > | must be ignored or not. So this works. It is a bit different > > | than it is done in diffserv mib and framework pib,=20 > but at least > > | it uses the same spec for FlowId. (or flowLabel) > > |=20 > > | - for draft-ietf-rmonmib-sspm-mib-06.txt, not sure who is=20 > > main editor > > | it would mean > > | - import FlowId > > | - replace > > | sspmSourceProfileFlowLabel OBJECT-TYPE > > | SYNTAX Integer32 (0..1048575) -- 20-bit range=20 > > | (0 to 0xfffff) > > | with > > | sspmSourceProfileFlowLabel OBJECT-TYPE > > | SYNTAX FlowId > > | - this is still an ID, so the change is OK > > |=20 > > |=20 > > | Thanks, > > | Bert=20 > > | _______________________________________________ > > | diffserv mailing list > > | [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv > > | Archive:=20 > > | http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/curre > > nt/maillist.html > >=20 >=20 >=20