On 5 aug 2009, at 1:26, Vince Fuller wrote:
Specifying some alternate reality and hoping that the operational
world will
modify its behavior to match
Isn't that the business the IETF is in?
doesn't seem very practical, particularly since
one of LISP's virtues is that it requires no changes to the transit
routing
system.
If we get router vendors on board with flow label ECMP for IPv6 now,
by the time we have those multi-gigabit IPv6 flows between a single
ITR/ETR pair, we'll be in reasonable shape.
I would be very interested to hear what the status of ECMP for IPv6 is
today, and especially if the implementations that can do this on the 5-
tuple today are flexible enough to be able to look at the flow label
without hardware changes.
The problem with all of this in IPv6 is that there can be routing and
fragmentation headers that make the port numbers appear in different
places. When I tested this in 2005, the Cisco routers that I used
wouldn't accommodate for this in their access lists, I so I can easily
see IPv6 ECMP not looking at the 5-tuple but the 3-tuple, not be able
to look at the 5-tuple consistently or simply not exist at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
