In your previous mail you wrote: And I understand that current load balancers can only do this based on a few fields: src/dest IP addresses (two RLOCs), the IP traffic class, the IP protocol field (UDP=17) and the src/dest UDP ports (xxxx and LISP=4341). I just don't see how this works very well with LISP, though... The two RLOCs are likely to be constant for all traffic between the same LISP routers, and ITR/ETR pair (right?).
=> in fact the IPv6 addresses don't need to be the same when xTRs are attached to regular links with /64 prefixes. So IMHO most of this discussion is insane: - if we need to vary things between a pair of IPv6 xTRs it should be enough (and simple/easy) to vary the addresses - we already have a "waste" of 2^64 addresses per links so this should never become a resource problem (:-) - the O UDP checksum proposal obsoletes all the today deployed nodes which check them (so all hosts I know and perhaps a lot of routers too), so if we believe something has to be fixed some routers should be fixed and not all BSD/Linux/MacOS/Windows boxes (software and hardware). To summary not only it is better to encourage application of RFCs than to twist them because they don't reflect the last idea, but in this case this is a total economical non-sense... Thanks francis.dup...@fdupont.fr PS: Margaret, the insane is not for you: your messages in this thread are clearly the most reasonnable/rational. PPS: to use the flow label (not alone) is not stupid, the 5-tuple is not always easy to extract in particular with IPv6. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
