> Well yes, although I've not been sure from the start of this discussion > why that is any business of *this* working group. Worrying about that > really belongs to whatever WG standardizes a specific use of the label. > All we need to do, imho, is establish the appropriate boundary > conditions, and that is what the current text aims to do.
I'd personally like to see this working group standardize a use of the flow label where, in the absense of something else using the flow label, every new TCP connection gets a new flow label value so that routers can use the flow label (or a hash therof) to perform load spreading without risk of reordering a TCP connection. My hope was that the current draft was going to do that. If the current draft merely states the constraints for other, future work to define a use of the flow label, then I don't see it being useful for the more immediate utility of the flow label. Does the mean we need an additional, short and simple "using the flow label for load balancing" draft? Erik -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
