Hi Jari, Thanks for the review.
On 2011-06-20 07:47, Jari Arkko wrote: > I have reviewed this draft. It is well written, justifies its > recommendations and I believe it is ready to move forward. I have asked > for an IETF Last Call. However, I did see one editorial issue and one > technical issue that I would like you to discuss and correct if > necessary (even during the Last Call): > >> If there is a high >> proportion of tunnel traffic, traffic will not be distributed as >> intended across the paths between R1 and R2. >> > > ... high proportion of traffic from one or small number of tunnels, > traffic will not be ... OK > >> * Intermediate IPv6 router(s) will presumably encounter a mixture >> of tunneled traffic and normal IPv6 traffic. Because of this, >> the design may also include {protocol, dest port, source port} >> as input keys to the ECMP and/or LAG hash algorithms, to >> provide additional entropy for flows whose flow label is set to >> zero, including non-tunneled traffic flows. Whether this is >> appropriate depends on the expected traffic mix and on >> considerations of implementation efficiency. >> > > Really, I don't think we are constructing routers that could only route > tunnel packets. A device such as a router needs to be capable of > handling both tunnel and non-tunnel packets. Indeed, the router will in > general not even be able to know if it is processing tunnel packets. I > would recommend changing the above "may also include" to "should also > include", and striking the last sentence. Personally, I think you're right. Should that be a normative SHOULD? We have a small handful of other minor edits that have come in since WGLC. Do you want us to post a new version? Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------