The problem for me is that if it is arbitrarily mutable, then we can not
use the flow label in a reliable and useful fashion in the ECMP / LAG.
After all, if it is arbitrarily mutable some ISP might set it to 0xFACE
because that was useful to them without regard to specific flows.
I would really like to be able to move towards a regime in which the
flow label is useful for ECMP/LAG, and is actually used, as that
resolves a number of awkward cases.
yours,
Joel
Fred Baker wrote:
On Apr 22, 2010, at 2:40 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
However, consider that the flow label is a forgeable field, not
protected by any checksum (including IPSEC).
So maybe mutability is in fact the only way to make it safe to
use across domain boundaries?
Interesting. I had it in my head that AH protected it.
Mutability, to me, is a good thing. It means that an ISP can use it, as
suggested, to carry a load balancing hash, or an egress identifier. Or for that
matter an ingress identifier for tracing purposes. I'll have to think about the
implications of that.
http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------