On 2010-04-21 20:50, Rémi Després wrote: > Hi Brian, > > I wonder what you think of what I answered to James on another discussion > thread.
I agree. I think that particular SHOULD in the RFC is an error. It "SHOULD" have said something like: "The source node MUST select new Flow Label values by a method that prevents unintended Flow Label value reuse." Brian > Regards, > RD > > > Début du message réexpédié : > >> De : Rémi Després <remi.desp...@free.fr> >> Date : 21 avril 2010 10:43:55 HAEC >> À : james woodyatt <j...@apple.com> >> Cc : 6man 6man <ipv6@ietf.org> >> Objet : Rép : Draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr-08 to become asap a 6man WG draft ? >> >> ... >>> In general, only some IPv6 packets have 5-tuples, and of those, only a >>> subset can have 5-tuples that packet analyzers can extract, i.e. the rest >>> are encapsulated in ESP or a moral equivalent (and ESP packets have >>> 4-tuples). >>> >>> Hosts should set flow labels. >> Agreed. >> >> This should be IMHO the conclusion of the current discussion on flow labels, >> BUT provided hosts are explicitly permitted to set flow-label values >> statelessly for each datagram, with a hash of their 5-tuples. >> (RFC 3697 says "To avoid accidental Flow Label value reuse, the source node >> SHOULD select new Flow Label values in a well-defined sequence", which >> privileges flow-label assignments that are stateful per connection, a choice >> significantly more complex than needed.) >> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
