On 21 Jun 2011, at 12:47 , Christian Huitema wrote: > Really? The fragment ID can change with each packet, correct? Imagine a UDP > stream that for some reason uses large packets. Or maybe some large packets > and some small packets. Isn't the proposal going to result in different > packets of the same "application stream" getting different flow ids? Isn't > that going to be somewhat problematic for load balancers?
I think the starting point probably should be the prior notes on this from Brian & George. As my note made clear, I merely echoed their words. <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg14263.html> In which, Brian wrote in part: > As far as routers go, I think we have to say that an implementor > has to choose between a reassembly-based solution using the 5-tuple > and simply using the 2-tuple (maybe also the fragmentation ID > - there is some scope for ingenuity here). <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg14270.html> In which, George wrote in part: > However, to Brian's comment about fragmentation ID, > is there any reason why the draft can't recommend > (or even require) this as a possible improvement over > straight 2-tuple in the revert case? Cheers, Ran -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
