Brian,
On Aug 5, 2009, at 22:19 MDT, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2009-08-06 05:34, Christopher Morrow wrote:
...
2) Removing other gems (or clarifying them) like the second
sentence in
the following:
---cut here---
IPv6 nodes MUST NOT assume any mathematical or other properties of
the
Shane,
On 2009-08-07 01:40, Shane Amante wrote:
Brian,
On Aug 5, 2009, at 22:19 MDT, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2009-08-06 05:34, Christopher Morrow wrote:
...
2) Removing other gems (or clarifying them) like the second
sentence in
the following:
---cut here---
IPv6 nodes MUST NOT
On 2009-08-06 05:34, Christopher Morrow wrote:
...
2) Removing other gems (or clarifying them) like the second sentence in
the following:
---cut here---
IPv6 nodes MUST NOT assume any mathematical or other properties of the Flow
Label
values assigned by source nodes. Router performance
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
'flow label bits alone make a poor material for a hash key'... isn't
this the reverse of saying that we'll (operators) require vendors to
use flow-label for hashing on ECMP/LAG? If so, then... I don't think
flow-label's going to cut it.
Please note
