Hi, Sheng and I would like to continue our attempt to make the flow label useful. The discussions in Anaheim and on this list have been very stimulating. I think we need to simplify the change proposed in draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-02 even more after the recent discussions, while maintaining the proposed duality (RFC 3697-like use still possible, but locally-defined use also possible for those who want it).
Independently, I expect to continue with draft-hu-flow-label-cases as background material and with draft-carpenter-flow-ecmp as a specific RFC 3697 use case, with my co-authors on those two drafts. The guidance we need from the 6MAN WG is: should we start to draft rfc3697bis, fixing the issues that have been raised and incorporating the (simplified) proposal from draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update? That would also need a new milestone added to the 6man charter. Regards Brian Carpenter -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
