Ran,

On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:41 AM, RJ Atkinson wrote:

> 
> On 03  Feb 2011, at 13:07 , Bob Hinden wrote:
>> I don't think we should limit the use of the flow label
>> for load balancing due to a concern about covert channels using the flow 
>> label.
> 
> So far as I am aware, no one has suggested not specifying
> how the Flow Label field might be used for load balancing.  

OK, it's good to make that clear.


> What I suggested was distinctly different, namely that some
> operational domains are likely to zero that field, either in 
> the origin node or as the packet crosses an administrative 
> boundary, in order to comply with domain-specific policy.
> 
> In turn that means (A) it is unlikely that IPv6 Flow Labels will
> reliably be unchanged end-to-end and (B) it is likely that some 
> IPv6 packets with zero-filled Flow Label fields will continue 
> to be seen on the global public Internet for the forseeable future.

For sure, but I suspect this will be the case for the foreseeable future due to 
the time it takes to update existing implementations that don't currently set 
the flow label.


> I also suggested that trying to legislate this issue out of existence 
> by putting words in an RFC was unlikely to be effective.  Operational
> folks in a wide range of organisations routinely configure their 
> systems to match local security policies, even when that policy or 
> configuration is not consistent with existing RFCs.


That's why the current draft says SHOULD.  The usual definition of SHOULD 
covers the scenario you describe.

Bob

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Ran
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to