On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:08:34 +0200, Rémi Després <remi.desp...@free.fr> wrote:
> Le 21 avr. 2010 à 23:17, Brian E Carpenter a écrit : > >> 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." > > Yes, that's more appropriate. > > Suggesting in addition that a 5-tuple hash can be an easy way to set > flow-label values, because it is stateless, would IMHO improve chances that > host really set them. > Wold you agree on this too? My reading of "The source node MUST select new Flow Label values by a method that prevents unintended Flow Label value reuse." would preclude use of a 5-tuple hash, which could result in coincidental selection of a flow label value already in-use by another flow. Do we really want/need to specify a MUST here? What is wrong with low-probability, coincidental flow label reuse between flows with different source/destination address pairs, so long as the values are otherwise uniformly distributed and unpredictable? Regards, // Steve -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
