Brian,
On Aug 5, 2009, at 22:19 MDT, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2009-08-06 05:34, Christopher Morrow wrote:
...
2) Removing other "gems" (or clarifying them) like the second
sentence in
the following:
---cut here---
IPv6 nodes MUST NOT assume any mathematical or other properties of
the Flow
Label
values assigned by source nodes. Router performance SHOULD NOT be
dependent
on the
distribution of the Flow Label values. Especially, the Flow Label
bits alone
make
poor material for a hash key.
---cut here---
'flow label bits alone make a poor material for a hash key'... isn't
this the reverse of saying that we'll (operators) require vendors to
use flow-label for hashing on ECMP/LAG? If so, then... I don't think
flow-label's going to cut it.
Please note the word "alone" in the above extract from RFC3697.
I think Chris may have read that a little too fast. :-) I wasn't
concerned with the third sentence in the RFC, that makes sense and is
clear. However, my concern was pertaining to the 2nd sentence,
specifically: "Router performance SHOULD NOT be dependent on the
distribution of the Flow Label values". Specifically, if Flow Label
values ARE used as one of the input-keys (in addition to src/dst IPv6
addresses), then the "distribution" of Flow Label values matters /a
lot/ in order to achieve "good" load-balancing over LAG/ECMP paths
and, consequently, good router performance. However, perhaps I'm
misreading/misunderstanding that 2nd sentence. Can you clarify it's
intent?
-shane
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
