On Aug 7, 2009, at 12:21 MDT, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
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).
In that case, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree and in doing so,
I'd like to take the liberty of quoting Vince Fuller's message to this
list back on 8/4/2009, where he says it better than I could:
---snip---
> Current operational reality is that the installed base of transit
routers
> on the Internet uses a hash of source/dest addres/port to split
traffic
> across LAGs so LISP uses an encapsulation that is compatible with
that
> reality.
>
> Specifying some alternate reality and hoping that the operational
world will
> modify its behavior to match doesn't seem very practical,
particularly since
> one of LISP's virtues is that it requires no changes to the transit
routing
> system.
---snip---
-shane
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
