Hi Joel,
Sorry for my ignorance. Can you explain to me what is mutable flow label or
pint me to a reference I can read? You are right, this usage wasn't intended
to substitute for transport protocol and port numbers in ECMP and LAG. But I
guess FL could be used for other purposes other than ECMP a
It is quite a stretch to claim that all traffic originating from (or in
the other direction destined to) a single customer constitute a
meaningful "flow". However, because RFC 3697 was carefully written to
be vague about this, it would be difficult to prove that it is incompatible.
I would no
Hi gents,
We have a design question of Flow Label. During the v6 transition, some DSL
providers may want to create an IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel from the BRAS to the
AFTR to continue to provider v4 access over a v6 core network. To identify a
CPE behind the BRAS, we propose to use the Flow Label. Each CP
Thanks Pascal for the historical tutorial.
Having not participated in IETF in the mid 90s, I find it interesting.
My FL reference to FLs is is essentially based on the "IPv6 Flow Label
Specification" of RFC 3697, in 2004.
Le 24 sept. 2010 à 10:47, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) a écrit :
> Hi Remi
Hi Remi:
> It looks like you insist on destroying FL compatibility with what it has been
> specified for.
What was it defined for, indeed?
The story starts in the mid-90s and is contiguous with the early Ypsilon work
on flow switching. It's quite natural that at that time, the concept of flow
