below... Erik Nordmark wrote: > > > 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?
IMHO the reason for getting the current draft on the standards track is precisely to allow a set of drafts on specific usage scenarios to appear. The draft is intended to allow several *simultaneous* usage scenarios to coexist. Yours is one of them. Diffserv is another. RSVP, and potentially NSIS and the recent RSVP2 proposals are others. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
