When reviewing the text for the next update, I rediscovered that we do in fact say
"The proposed generic use is to encourage pseudo-random flow labels that can be used to assist load balancing." so (with draft-ietf-6man-flow-ecmp also in progress) I think Fred's point is covered. Regards Brian On 2010-12-15 15:00, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
