From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@idosch.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 0/7] net/ipv6: Add support for path
 selection using hash of 5-tuple
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 14:42:05 +0200
Message-ID: <20180213124205.GB17908@splinter>
References: <20180213000602.12150-1-dsahern@gmail.com>
 <CAJ3xEMhtpmcNRNH9p5a2=RHCPZq1HW_y6pnPF45UAFVeCDgang@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>,
        Linux Netdev List <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@cumulusnetworks.com>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@mellanox.com>,
        Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
To: Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@gmail.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.28]:54121 "EHLO
        out4-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
        by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934971AbeBMMmI (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Tue, 13 Feb 2018 07:42:08 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJ3xEMhtpmcNRNH9p5a2=RHCPZq1HW_y6pnPF45UAFVeCDgang@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 01:03:14PM +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 2:05 AM, David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hardware supports multipath selection using the standard L4 5-tuple
> > instead of just L3 and the flow label. In addition, some network
> > operators prefer IPv6 path selection to use the 5-tuple.
> 
> The HW supports using flow label and AFAIK that is the preferred approach
> by the community (?)
> 
> > To that end, add support to IPv6 for multipath hash policy
> 
> so a question comes up if/what are the disadvantaged
> to support 5-tuple. E.g Tom was commenting that such DPI is problematic
> when multiple IPv6 header extensions are used.

Tom is much more qualified to answer this, but I think the problem is
that the flow label isn't always set. Also, apparently some devices
change the flow label mid flow. See:

"At Fastly, this hashing is performed by an Ethernet switch ASIC, and to
avoid breakage, the IPv6 hashing function must not include the flow
label. As in IPv4, the hash function includes the source and destination
information in the L3 and L4 headers."
https://blog.apnic.net/2018/01/11/ipv6-flow-label-misuse-hashing/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0CRjOpnT7w
https://pc.nanog.org/static/published/meetings/NANOG71/1531/20171003_Jaeggli_Lightning_Talk_Ipv6_v1.pdf