On May 2, 2013, at 2:17 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's why I think the way out is to use the wiggle room mentioned > above. I hope we can. I'm afraid I don't see any wiggle room. Section 3 of RFC 6437 requires every new flow - every new TCP session, in the most extreme reading of that - to have a new flow label value. This proposal presumes that all of the flows subject to the same security policy would be identified by the same flow label. By your rubric, an operator who is not using the flow label for load balancing MUST NOT use the flow label for a different purpose. Frankly, I wish you luck enforcing the ruling. Operators have a funny habit of doing what they deem important. Our job in the IETF is to help them be able to do that using software and hardware from multiple interoperable sources. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
