On 2011-06-30 04:42, Thomas Narten wrote: > I'm generally OK with this text. > > Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> writes: >> o This option, if implemented, would presumably be of value in >> first-hop or ingress routers. It might place a considerable per- >> packet processing load on them, even if they adopted a stateless >> method of flow identification and label assignment. Also, it >> should not interfere with host-to-router load sharing [RFC4311]. > > This sentence is ambiguous. is the "should not" a statement of fact, > or is it a directive, i.e., is there some implication for implementors > that they need to be aware of so as not to intefere with 4311?
There's a fair amount of wiggle room in 4311, but I think it is true that setting the flow label in a router *will not* interfere. So I think that s/should not/will not/ is correct. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
