We do have draft-ietf-6man-flow-ecmp, which is focussed on ECMP/LAG load sharing in tunnels. The reason we're proposing to recommend pseudo-random labels by default is so that load sharing becomes a natural use case.
When we did RFC 3697, there was strong pressure to keep the spec as "pure" as possible. I was sort of assuming the same approach this time around. Of course, the WG can decide otherwise, but embedding the use case(s) in the protocol spec does lengthen the discussion considerably. Regards Brian On 2010-12-15 14:26, Fred Baker wrote: > So you're really really not interested in discussing the one use case that > people have actually talked about wanting, which has to do with load sharing? > What use case are you addressing? > > On Dec 14, 2010, at 5:14 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> The authors have received one off-list comment on this version, >> requesting additional clarification of the text associated with >> this recommendation: >> >>>> 2. A network domain MUST NOT forward packets outside the domain >>>> whose flow label values are other than zero or pseudo-random. >>>> >> Does anyone else have comments, or are we getting somewhere near agreement? >> >> Regards >> Brian Carpenter >> >> >> On 2010-12-03 12:40, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> This is intended to reflect the various comments made in Beijing, >>> notably strengthening the points about the flow label not being >>> changed en route. Please review - if the WG is generally OK >>> with this version, we'll start to think about RFC3697bis. >>> >>> Brian + Sheng + Shane >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-6man-flow-update-00.txt >>> Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 15:00:02 -0800 >>> From: internet-dra...@ietf.org >>> Reply-To: internet-dra...@ietf.org >>> To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org >>> CC: ipv6@ietf.org >>> >>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >>> directories. >>> This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the IETF. >>> >>> >>> Title : Update to the IPv6 flow label specification >>> Author(s) : S. Amante, et al. >>> Filename : draft-ietf-6man-flow-update-00.txt >>> Pages : 13 >>> Date : 2010-12-02 >>> >>> Various published proposals for use of the IPv6 flow label are >>> incompatible with its existing specification in RFC 3697. >>> Furthermore, very little practical use is made of the flow label, >>> partly due to some uncertainties about the correct interpretation of >>> the specification. This document proposes changes to the >>> specification in order to clarify it, making it clear what types of >>> usage are possible, and to introduce some additional flexibility. >>> >>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-flow-update-00.txt >>> >>> >>> >>> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
