On Aug 10, 2010, at 11:12 PM, Rémi Després wrote: > > Le 10 août 2010 à 18:09, Michael Richardson a écrit : > >> >>>>>>> "Rémi" == Rémi Després <remi.desp...@free.fr> writes: >> Rémi> RFC 3697 isn't concerned with ASes, and doesn't need to be. >> Rémi> The proposal is only that, where load balancing is performed, >> Rémi> 0 FLs MAY be replaced by meaningful values for this purpose. >> Rémi> A FL, once set to a non 0 value, never needs to be reset. >> >> okay, so what you are saying is that load balancing uses of the FL are >> only upset when they see zero. So for instance, if layer-4s (i.e. end >> points) were mandated that they must now always set a FL consistently on >> a flow, and set it to a non-zero value, that this would satisfy the >> requirements of load balancers. > > Right. > > To be even more precise: > - Flow endpoints (sometimes layer 4 and sometimes layer 3) should from now on > be mandated to set FLs with non-0 values that statistically differ from a > flow to another.
The intention is to have a BCP for network stack implementers to follow? > - However, we have to face that, so far, they are generally mandated to set > FLs to 0. I apologize for the lack of context (I'm coming from ROLL): your sentence seems to suggest that flow labels today are mandated to be 0. This doesn't seem to be right: among other things, ping6 supports setting the flow label, and by default allocates a random flow label.[1] Basically, I'm confused if you're talking in the present tense of what's done with flow labels today, or the future tense of how flow labels should be used in the future. Phil [1] http://linux.die.net/man/8/ping6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
