> -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> "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]." #1 appeals because it could be used instead of the 5-tuple available in IPv4. On the other hand, a lack of header checksum in IPv6 spoils that party at least to some extent. If there's something that can be done to fix the lack of header checksum, I would favor #1. Bert -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
