Re: [MEXT] weird idea about flow bindings

[Hesham Soliman <hesham at elevatemobile.com>]

On 17/05/09 3:04 PM, "marcelo bagnulo braun" <marcelo at it.uc3m.es> wrote:

> Hesham Soliman escribió:
>> The flow label should be part of any filter descriptor anyway. So at anytime
>> A MN can send a BU specifying that packets with flow label X should be
>> directed to CoA1. I'm not sure how your proposal changes/adds to this.
>>   
> 
> what i am saying is that you don't need anything else other than this

=> see below

>> As a general issue, the flow label is unlikely to be used for this purpose
>> until we resolve it's mutability issues
> 
> what mutability issues are you referring to?
> AFAIU, the flow label is set randomly b the source and remains unchanged
> e2e and for the duration of the flow.

=> I thought RFC 3697 talked about it being changed en route then changed
back before it hits the destination. But I just scanned it and I can't find
this text. Maybe it was never included.

>>  and until it is actually _used_ in
>> the API. At least until recently no one was using it.
>>   
> 
> why do we need to have it in the API? It is only imporntat the the
> source sets it to a random value and keep it unchenged e2e and for the
> duration of the flow. I understand that these conditions are met today,
> right?

=> But are you saying the src MIP6 module overwrites the potential flow
label set in the API? Because it is possible that an app sets the flow
label. RFC 3697 assumes the presence of an e2e mechanism to negotiate the
flow label. If not then how do you make sure it's always unique? And how do
you make sure that the CN echoes back the same value in the flow label?
And what if the CN initiated the connection?

Hesham