Hi Brian, >> Well, "unintended" may be taken as permitting the hash (its intent of the >> hash that two different 5-tuples give in general two different values, with >> only statistically rare exceptions), but better words may also be proposed. >> In any case, explicitly permitting the 5-tuple hash is IMHO desireble. > > Yes. And if that produces identical hashes for two different 5-tuples, then > the lawyer in me says that's "intended" so does not break the MUST. > This needs to be carefully wordsmithed, but I think we are in agreement. Though as the size of the 5-tuple is more than when using the 4-tuple with flow label, it should not be an issue at all.
The ingress can use same flow labels when the it doesn't care if certain flows go over the same path or not/ or it could use different flow labels when sending sub-flow traffic over different paths. It could also use the intelligence to distribute flows with different labels, which it cannot in case of the 5-tuple as the values cannot be changed based on flow needs. Thanks, Vishwas > Brian >> >> Regard, >> RD >> >> >>> 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 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
