Also remember that 3697 is obsoleted by draft-ietf-6man-flow-3697bis, which is fully approved and very close to becoming an RFC.
Regards Brian On 2011-10-15 12:30, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou wrote: > > Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote on 15/10/2011 01:41: >> Tassos, >> >> From: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou [mailto:ach...@forthnet.gr] >> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 6:29 PM >> To: Hemant Singh (shemant) >> Cc: IPv6 WG Mailing List >> Subject: Re: FW: New Version Notification for >> draft-hsingh-6man-enhanced-dad-01.txt >> >> >>> I was wondering...wouldn't the flow label be a "better" field for >>> storing this random number? >>> If i remember correctly, early drafts of RPL were using it for loop >>> detection (ok, in a very different way), although in the later ones a >>> new option was chosen. >>> Sure, RFC 3697 is very strict on its specification, sure SEND already >>> uses the Nonce option, but since we are talking about ND only >>> (=before any real src/dst flow) i would like to know the>rationale >>> behind of this decision; choosing an extra option instead of a >>> mandatory -useless until recently- field. Maybe then, all ND messages >>> could be supported (less impact on memory?). >>> I may have missed some talks about this in the past (or maybe i'm >>> talking nonsense :-[ ), so please forgive me if this is the case. >> No forgiveness needed ☺. You have been a great reviewer for lot of >> documents! The flow label was the first field I and another colleague >> of mine at Cisco thought of. However yet another colleague of mine >> shot down the use of Flow Label with the following comments in double >> quotes. >> >> “Using the flow label for this is likely to be highly controversial. >> I can already hear people claiming it's not a "flow", etc.” >> >> The flow label has another nuance. It's a 20-bit field and thus a >> nonce generated with such number of bits has one in a million chance >> of a duplicate. The community may prefer at least a 32-bit nonce or >> higher. That is why I decided to just use the Nonce Option from SEND >> in RFC 3971. >> >> Thus can we move away from the Flow Label and use the Nonce Option >> from SEND? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Hemant >> >> > That is ok with me. Just wanted to know the background story.;-) > > > btw, draft-asati-v6ops-dad-loopback seems to be dealing with the same > problem too (but from a different perspective). Section 3.2 of it is > quite similar though. > Are there any plans to merge these two docs? If not, will there be any > references of each other? > > PS: previous email came from my old address, so i messed things a little > bit. > > Regards, > Tassos > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
