On 2010-10-01 20:29, Rémi Després wrote: > 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.") >
Yes, in the non-normative appendix! The only normative statement in 2460 is in section 6: "Hosts or routers that do not support the functions of the Flow Label field are required to set the field to zero when originating a packet, pass the field on unchanged when forwarding a packet, and ignore the field when receiving a packet." Brian > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------