below... On 2011-06-07 11:22, Bob Hinden wrote: > Ran, > > On Jun 6, 2011, at 9:39 AM, RJ Atkinson wrote: > >> I would be reluctant to advocate use of a hash algorithm >> as computationally expensive as MD5() for generating an >> IPv6 Flow Label. >> >> My sense is that a thoughtful implementer likely would >> choose the least computationally expensive algorithm >> that would suffice to generate a Flow Label value >> suitable for load-balancing purposes. >> >> As a use case, one might consider some sort of content server >> with very large numbers of short-lived TCP sessions. If an >> expensive algorithm (e.g. MD5()) were used in that case, >> then the effort to compute the flow label might be am >> interesting fraction of "new TCP session creation" overhead. >> In turn, this might impair the scalability of that content >> server. > > I suppose one could precompute a bunch ahead of time, but I agree with your > comment. It's a good point. > >> In any event, I'm quite comfortable with Brian's current >> approach to document a possible algorithm that ought to >> suffice without mandating any particular algorithm. >> This really is a situation where the details are best >> left to implementers (since no interoperability issue >> would arise from different implementations using different >> algorithms). > > I also agree. >
I sort of agree, if we're talking about my proposed replacement algorithm However, I would want to weaken the language in the appendix to make it clear that better algorithms can and will be found - I've had to break off my experiments for a few weeks due to travel, but there is a lot of scope for improvement. Anyway, let's see what the AD thinks. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------