On 2010-12-15 15:58, Steven Blake wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:14:02 +1300, Brian E Carpenter
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The authors have received one off-list comment on this version,
>> requesting additional clarification of the text associated with
>> this recommendation:
>>
2. A
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:14:02 +1300, Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The authors have received one off-list comment on this version,
> requesting additional clarification of the text associated with
> this recommendation:
>
>>>2. A network domain MUST NOT forward packets outside the
We do have draft-ietf-6man-flow-ecmp, which is focussed on ECMP/LAG
load sharing in tunnels. The reason we're proposing to recommend
pseudo-random labels by default is so that load sharing becomes a
natural use case.
When we did RFC 3697, there was strong pressure to keep the spec
as "pure" as pos
So you're really really not interested in discussing the one use case that
people have actually talked about wanting, which has to do with load sharing?
What use case are you addressing?
On Dec 14, 2010, at 5:14 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The authors have received one off-list comm
Hi,
The authors have received one off-list comment on this version,
requesting additional clarification of the text associated with
this recommendation:
>>2. A network domain MUST NOT forward packets outside the domain
>>whose flow label values are other than zero or pseudo-r
On 2010-12-09 04:35, Brian Haberman wrote:
> All,
> This starts a 2-week consensus call on adopting
>
> Title : Security Assessment of the IPv6 Flow Label
> Author(s) : F. Gont
> Filename : draft-gont-6man-flowlabel-security-01.txt
> Pages : 20
> Date :
