Brian, Thanks for the reference. BTW, I was relatively sold on using the Flow Label to stick a nonce into for ND traffic because ND traffic remains in the link-local domain and is control traffic. It's not like a nonce labeled Flow Label data packet is leaking out to the wide area network. Also with the Flow Label there is less confusion vs. when we use the Nonce Option defined from SEND. In a mixed SEND and unsecured (no SEND) network, the lengths of the nonces MUST be the same. Otherwise some sloppy implementation can cause a buffer overrun parsing the nonce.
It was the 20-bits in the Flow Label that was one big reason to ditch using it and then other was what my colleague said about overloading the Flow Label. Regards, Hemant -----Original Message----- From: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 8:17 PM To: Brian E Carpenter Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); IPv6 WG Mailing List Subject: Re: FW: New Version Notification for draft-hsingh-6man-enhanced-dad-01.txt I have no objection Brian. I can understand the reason for keeping the flow label "clean". I was just wondering if there were any plans to use the flow label for ND traffic too, or we should consider that there are no real flows there. Regards, Tassos -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
