I support approach 2.
B. R.
Tina
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>
To: "6man" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 9:10 AM
Subject: [Fwd: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-03.txt]
Hi,
This is revised again according to discussion on the list, and some
off-list discussion with Shane Amante in particular.
Firstly, since there seemed to be a feeling that a full update
of RFC 3697 is better than publishing a set of changes, this is
now just informational, although written using normative language.
The major next step would be a 3697bis draft.
Secondly, it offers the WG a binary choice as the main decision:
"There appear to be two viable approaches:
1. Definitively forbid locally defined use of the flow label.
Strengthen RFC 3697 to say that hosts SHOULD set a pseudo-random
label value, which would clarify and limit its possible uses. In
particular, its use for load balancing and possibly as a nonce
would be encouraged.
2. Encourage locally defined use of the flow label. This approach
would make the flow label mutable and would exclude any use case
depending on end-to-end immutability. It would encourage
applications of a pseudo-random flow label, such as load
balancing, on a local basis, but it would exclude end-to-end
applications such as [I-D.blake-ipv6-flow-label-nonce]."
Please, can we focus on this choice rather than the fine details,
initially? Also, please read the draft as a whole; looking at diffs
would be quite confusing.
Brian + Sheng
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-03.txt
Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 18:00:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: internet-dra...@ietf.org
Reply-To: internet-dra...@ietf.org
To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
Title : Update to the IPv6 flow label specification
Author(s) : B. Carpenter, S. Jiang
Filename : draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-03.txt
Pages : 11
Date : 2010-05-06
Various published proposals for use of the IPv6 flow label are
incompatible with its existing specification in RFC 3697. This
document proposes changes to the specification that permit additional
use cases. The concept of flow label domains is introduced, with the
label possibly being rewritten at domain boundaries.
A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-03.txt
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
