Le 23 oct. 2010 à 16:09, Randy Bush a écrit :
1. I do think that the justification in the draft for such a major
change, after 12 years work based on RFC 2460, is weak.
how much do you want for hacking on an unused field, another glorious
pile of second system syndrome, for which dozens of
Before IPv6 traffic becomes really high, the need for efficient IPv6 load
balancing remained low.
That's why the need to fix loose ends of flow labels hasn't been pressing so
far.
Fixing flow-label details, so that their intended use becomes practical,
makes IMHO more sense
than
Maybe. But then, waiting for the traffic to increase and the load
balancing needs to materialize also makes a lot of sense. I am pretty
sure that 5 or 10 years from now someone will be glad that there are
unused bits in the header...
folk have been trying to agree/find a use for flow labels
