Hi, Brian, > Fernando's algorithm is strictly compatible with RFC3697 and with the future > RFC3697bis (based on today's WG discussion). But it is compatible > with a policy that says "all simultaneous and overlapping > sessions between the same two IP addresses are treated as a single flow."
Would this really make sense if we intend that the Flow Label be used for ECMP/LAG? > If, in accordance with the draft we adopted today, the label is > created by a router, the only way to satisfy Shane's requirement > is to use the whole 5-tuple. Shane's requirement == each 5-tuple gets a different "Flow Label"? -- If that's the case, the router can still apply the algorithm specified in draft-gont to achieve that. Thanks! Kind regards, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@acm.org PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
