On 2010-09-10 00:09, Rémi Després wrote:
...
> R3. Intermediate nodes MAY replace null FL values by non-zero FL values,
> PROVIDED these non-zero values generally differ from a flow to another.
IMHO that isn't a strong enough condition, if we want load balancing to be
the preferred default usage. In fact it is one of the criticisms of 3697
that all it demands is a unique value, rather than a pseudo-random value.
> R4. Intermediate nodes MAY replace non-zero FL values by non-zero FL values,
> PROVIDED these non-zero values generally differ from a flow to another.
That makes the FL completely mutable. I don't detect consensus for that; as
people have said, we have diffserv for that, and 6 bits seems to be plenty...
> R5. Intermediate nodes MAY replace non-zero FL values by null values ONLY IF
> found necessary for some identified policy-dependent security reason (e.g. in
> some managed firewalls).
I'd go a bit further - if a domain ends up using non-pseudo-random values,
they should be zeroed out before letting packets escape the domain.
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
