On May 2, 2013, at 2:37 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Read the first paragraph of the Introduction carefully, in connection > with the SHOULD in the second paragraph of section 3. > > You could definitely provide a good reason for bypassing that SHOULD. Fine. I'll point to that and say that this is a different use case. > Regards > Brian > > On 03/05/2013 09:24, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: >> 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
