[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hi Jarno, > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 11 Sep 2002: > > IP has never promised to not reorder packets. I do not > > think we need to build in any guarantees now either. > > It is not a matter of having IP guaranteeing packet > sequence, but rather to keep packet reordering limited > to avoid bothering TCP too much. > > I think there is a big difference between IP packets > beeing reordered by (hopefully not too frequent) route > change transcients or being reordered because a load > balancer scatters a flow on different routes on a per > packet basis. > > I believe a good IP network should avoid the latter > as much as possible.
We all agree on this, I hope. There is nothing in the flow label draft that affects reordering or prevents the usage of the flow label that Margaret described, for hosts that choose to support that usage. Can we move on? For example to a WG last call on the flow label draft? 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
