0323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org]
>> Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 3:28 AM
>> To: George, Wes E IV [NTK]
>> Cc: Brian E Carpenter; 6man
>> Subject: Re: [Fwd: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-03.txt]
>>
>> Sorry for the (very) late response, fina
l, all of the other uses for the field
> appear to be niche applications, with limited utility.
>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
> George, Wes E IV [NTK] wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Mark Smith [mailto:i...@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org]
> > Sent: Saturda
...@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org]
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 3:28 AM
To: George, Wes E IV [NTK]
Cc: Brian E Carpenter; 6man
Subject: Re: [Fwd: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-03.txt]
Sorry for the (very) late response, finally remembered to reply
Does there have to be a
-Original Message-
From: Mark Smith [mailto:i...@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org]
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 3:28 AM
To: George, Wes E IV [NTK]
Cc: Brian E Carpenter; 6man
Subject: Re: [Fwd: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-03.txt]
Sorry for the (very) late
ursday, May 06, 2010 9:11 PM
> To: 6man
> Subject: [Fwd: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-03.txt]
>
> Secondly, it offers the WG a binary choice as the main decision:
>
> "There appear to be two viable approaches:
>1. Definitively forbid locally defined
..@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> George, Wes E IV [NTK]
> Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 5:03 PM
> To: Brian E Carpenter; 6man
> Subject: RE: [Fwd: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-03.txt]
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ipv6-boun.
cross multiple n
etworks.
Thanks
Wes George
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of George,
Wes E IV [NTK]
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 5:03 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter; 6man
Subject: RE: [Fwd: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-03.txt
> -Original Message-
> From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
> Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 9:29 PM
> To: Brian E Carpenter
> Cc: 6man
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-03.txt]
>
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E
Carpenter
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 9:11 PM
To: 6man
Subject: [Fwd: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-03.txt]
Secondly, it offers the WG a binary choice as the main decision
> -Original Message-
> From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> "There appear to be two viable approaches:
>1. Definitively forbid locally defined use of the flow label.
>Strengthen RFC 3697 to say that hosts SHOULD set a
would exclude end-to-end
>> applications such as [I-D.blake-ipv6-flow-label-nonce]."
>> Please, can we focus on this choice rather than the fine details,
>> initially? Also, please read the draft as a whole; looking at diffs
>> would be quite confusing.
>> Brian + She
Thomas, Christian,
I'm responding to both of you in a single message, since you both expressed
concern with choice 2, (locally-defined use of flow-labels), particularly in
the face of IPSec.
Let's first look at the situation as it stands today. Today, if hosts or IPSec
GW's sent IPSec ESP pac
On May 7, 2010, at 15:28, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> The more I think about "encouraging" locally defined use of the flow label,
> the less I like it.
>
> The basic problem is that in the context we are discussing, is for use by
> routers.
> If you have locally defined flow label usage, then
> 1)
.
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel M.
Halpern
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 6:29 AM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: 6man
Subject: Re: [Fwd: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-03.txt]
The more I think about "encouraging&quo
fine details,
initially? Also, please read the draft as a whole; looking at diffs
would be quite confusing.
Brian + Sheng
Original Message ----
Subject: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-03.txt
Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 18:00:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: internet-dra...@ietf.org
Reply-T
I haven't decided yet whether I can support choice 2.
However, should choice 2 be used, what is the recommendation when
IPsec is in use? The recommendation assumes access to port numbers and
the like, which are hidden when IPsec is in use.
This is particularly important when a packet exits one F
I support approach 2.
B. R.
Tina
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
- Original Message -
From: "Brian E Carpenter"
To: "6man"
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 9:10 AM
Subject: [Fwd: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-03.txt]
Hi,
This is revise
nonce]."
Please, can we focus on this choice rather than the fine details,
initially? Also, please read the draft as a whole; looking at diffs
would be quite confusing.
Brian + Sheng
Original Message
Subject: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-03.txt
Date: Thu, 6 May 201
18 matches
Mail list logo
