Le 1 oct. 2010 à 02:00, Brian E Carpenter a écrit : > On 2010-09-30 20:01, Rémi Després wrote: >>> ... >>> Our question is: "Is this usage compatible to RFC 3697?" We posted this >>> question to Softwires and we were told to also ask 6man for input. >> >> With RFC 3697 as is, it doesn't seem to be compatible. >> This is because the RFC specifies a very specific way to assign FLs to flows. > > I don't see the problem. The RFC leaves the packet source entirely free > to define a flow in any way it likes, and doesn't specify much > about the value of the flow label.
Oops, thank you, my comment applies to RFC 2460 (not to RFC3697). (That is RFC 2460 that says "New flow labels must be chosen (pseudo-)randomly and uniformly from the range 1 to FFFFF hex.") Regards, RD > > Brian > >> >> Now, in the revision under study, what you propose should IMHO be >> unambiguously permitted. >> (For a load-balancing application between BRAS and AFTRs, your proposal is >> clearly a good choice.) >> >> Regards, >> RD >> >>> Thanks, >>> Yiu >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
