Shane, thanks for infusing this discussion with some data.
On 7 aug 2009, at 20:05, Shane Amante wrote:
Therefore, I'll have to revise my original recommendation in the first bullet above that we only consider UDP with 0 checksums as the preferred short-term solution when IPv6 is being used as the outer encapsulation,
I don't see that. Currently, there isn't that much IPv6 traffic in the first place, and certainly not between the same source/destination addresses. So the lack of a fine-grained optimal solution to the load balancing issue is not a problem in practice. This affords us the relative luxury of being able to ignore current problems in implementations and do the right thing, rather than be forced to do something ugly and difficult (that would be UDP with no checksum).
And if we were to consider an ugly solution, making LISP use several IPv6 addresses per ITR/ETR would be a better solution.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
