Hi, I think the draft is a good documentation of the issues and the benefits of using the IPv6 flow ID with load balancing.
It would be more consistent with the completeness of the rest of the document to have a more complete list of typical load balancer server selection algorithms in the last paragraph of Section 5. There are people who believe that Informational documents can't have normative references. I am generally inclined that way myself. Various descriptions in the draft, like "statistically rare" could be made a bit more quantitative. I'm not saying a detailed numeric analysis is needed but a rough number based on reasonable simplifying assumptions might help to make things a little less fuzzy. Those are all my comments. Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA [email protected] On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 2:57 AM, Sheng Jiang <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, dear Donald, > > You agreed to review our flow label balancing document during the IntArea > meeting in Orlando. The blow is the link for our document. Could you please > review it and give your comments? > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-intarea-flow-label-balancing-00 > > Many thanks and best regards, > > Sheng _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
