> I have a quite strongly held belief that trying to be mathematically > precise (not to say pedantic) has never worked well in IETF > protocols.
Agree completely. :-) > We do seem to agree that the important point is that the final output > of the hash function used to select between alternate routes is > uniformly distributed. Asking for flow label values that are reasonably > well distributed as input to that hash function is enough. Right. But now let me flip-flop a bit. In order to understand what "reasonably well distributed as input" actually means, we need to understand what algorithms are being used by routers when doing ECMP and the like. If we had data about what algorithms are actually used (or are reasonable to implement) we can talk about the distribution properties that are needed on the input side of the hash. Is there any such data? What do the router implementor say to this? I feel like much of the discussion so far about what kind of distribution is needed has been handwaving. To be clear, what I'd like is simple rules on how to set the Flow Label, but no simpler than is necessary to make the ECMP stuff work well in practice. Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
