From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
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 08:21:14 -0700
Message-ID: <8373febc-682f-5b8a-b9e7-9ef33f5f24ca@gmail.com>
References: <20180213000602.12150-1-dsahern@gmail.com>
 <CAJ3xEMhtpmcNRNH9p5a2=RHCPZq1HW_y6pnPF45UAFVeCDgang@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180213124205.GB17908@splinter>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 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: Ido Schimmel <idosch@idosch.org>, Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@gmail.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-yw0-f172.google.com ([209.85.161.172]:36247 "EHLO
        mail-yw0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751673AbeBMPU6 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Tue, 13 Feb 2018 10:20:58 -0500
Received: by mail-yw0-f172.google.com with SMTP id t129so12509169ywc.3
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 07:20:58 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20180213124205.GB17908@splinter>
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On 2/13/18 5:42 AM, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> 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.

Pros and cons to both approaches (L3 only or L4). We (Cumulus Networks)
use L4 5-tuple hash for both IPv4 and IPv6. When I asked around various
experts all of them gave me a puzzled look as to why I was asking the
question. Basically, the unanimous response was of course it is an L4 hash.


> 
> 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
>