Le 22 avr. 2010 à 04:56, Brian E Carpenter a écrit : > 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).
In my understanding, restoring domain-entrance FL-values at domain exit should be a "MUST" for any domain-specific use: - Efficiency of FL-based load balancing requires that FLs are in general different for different 5-tuples. - For fragmented datagrams, only source hosts are in a position to base FL values on 5-tuples (intra-domain nodes aren't). Provided this obligation is complied with, any domain-specific use of FLs is clearly permitted (it remains a purely local matter). > 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? IMHO, yes. > That would also need a new milestone added to the 6man charter. Support for this. Regards, RD -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
