* Fernando Gont: > I have just posted a revision of the aforementioned I-D. It is available > at: <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-gont-6man-flowlabel-security-02.txt> > > Any comments will be appreciated.
Destination-specific counters introduce state keeping requirements and concurrency bottlenecks. Are those really necessary? I would like to see actual use of the flow label field which doesn't suffer from denial of service issues (by creating many flows with the same label, undermining things like label-based load distribution) or traffic parasitism. Furthermore, RFC 6437 allows modification of the flow label header in transit, so I really doubt that there are any such applications. -- Florian Weimer <fwei...@bfk.de> BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
