On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Ross Callon<rcal...@juniper.net> wrote:
> There isn't all that much IPv6 traffic right now (some please correct me if > this is wrong), and the ramp-up speed seems relatively 'much global ipv6 traffic'. There are places with more ipv6 traffic, where LAG/ECMP is important. These 'internet protocols' get used on 'not the internet' networks as well. Additionally, across links not gig in size, but still lag/ecmp-aware. > slow. Thus to me it seems that the time frame that it would take to change > router hardware is long, but no longer than the time > frame that it is likely before we find ourselves with enough IPv6 traffic > that we actually need to do a good job of ECMP splitting of 'enough global/public ipv6 traffic' - I would caution that there are places where LAG/ECMP is necessary today, or will be in the very near future, that are not publicly visible. > traffic going over an IPv6 tunnel. Thus I think that it would be okay to do > this by putting a hash of higher layer flow information into > the flow field, if we think that is the right way to do it. -chris -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
