It is already mutable, as it turns out. It always was. On Apr 22, 2010, at 6:57 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> 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 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
