I may have not quite understood the comments about ECMP and the flow label in 6man today. But here goes:
The flow label spec in RFC3697 says, very carefully and precisely: 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. This seems to be frightening people. The point is that, although we'd like the flow labels to be widely scattered across the 2^20 possible values, we can't be certain that arbitrary sources will generate that with adequate randomness. Since we didn't know when we wrote RFC3697, and don't know today, which end-to-end use cases for the flow label will emerge, we can't make any mathematical assumptions about the actual randomness. In fact, today, the average value of the flow label is essentially indistinguishable from zero. The key word in the above extract is "alone". If you want use a hash to drive ECMP, don't just hash the flow label, because you'll very likely always get the same answer. If you currently use a 5-tuple for an ECMP hash, expand it to a 6-tuple by adding the flow label. Section 1.2.5 of draft-fairhurst-tsvwg-6man-udpzero-00 says: An alternate method could utilise the IPv6 Flow Label to perform load balancing. This would release IPv6 load-balancing devices from the need to assume semantics for the use of the transport port field. This use of the flow-label is consistent with the intended use, although further clarity may be needed to ensure the field can be consistently used for this purpose. Router vendors could be encouraged to start using the IPv6 Flow Label as a part of the flow hash. I think the fact is that you can usefully *add* it to the hash, in the expectation that non-zero flow labels will appear in future, but initially it will do nothing to improve the distribution of the hash. So I think that the ports cannot be removed; the second sentence above is wrong. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------