> ISSUE 10. Section 2 also says: > > Forwarding nodes such as routers and load balancers MUST NOT depend > only on Flow Label values being randomly distributed. In any usage > such as a hash key for load balancing, the Flow Label bits MUST be > combined with bits from other sources within the packet, so as to > produce a suitable distribution of hash values. > > Why is it restricted to "within the packet"? Couldn't the load balancer > use something else too, especially for a stateful mechanism? > > QUESTION: Should "within the packet" be deleted? >
"within the packet" ensures consistency, if it refers to address fields. Also, it does not mean ONLY, i.e. other sources (such as a local key) are not excluded. However, don't see how a protocol spec could mandate how a router internal hashing is implemented. At best we could say "SHOULD". > -------------- > ISSUE 11. In section 3: > > A node that forwards a flow whose flow label value in arriving > packets is zero MAY set the flow label value. In that case, it is > RECOMMENDED that the forwarding node sets the flow label field for a > flow to a pseudo-random value. > > QUESTION: Should we suggest how the forwarding node identifies packets > belonging > to the same flow? (draft-ietf-6man-flow-ecmp talks about this.) Yes. See also my response to issue 9. Jarno -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
