Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>
> Hi Brian,
>
> >[BC] Probably, but near the source or destination this is not necessarily
> >true. In a non-diffserv, non-intserv scenario, using the triplet
> >{source, dest, flow label} to split the traffic could be interesting.
>
> And, how do load balancing routers determine that this is a non-diffserv,
> non-intserv scenario?
Jarno answered this one I think, but my point is that *they don't need to
know*. They just behave the same way in all cases, and the traffic that
doesn't carry fine-grain flow labels will just not get load balanced.
>
> >[BC] This argument is beside the point, which is getting the flow label
> >draft finished. Since the draft allows load balancing as Margaret
> >described it to co-exist with other usage, this WG simply shouldn't care.
>
> Of course this WG should care. The document is a work item of the WG,
> so the WG is responsible for the contents of the document, which should
> reflect working group consensus in every regard.
The WG should care that its output is technically consistent and necessary
and sufficient, but this isn't a QOS working group or the NSIS working
group or the load balancing WG and it shouldn't attempt to second-guess
those topics. That's what I mean by "shouldn't care."
Philosophically, I think the WG standardising the datagram layer should
be as minimalist as possible in its assumptions about how people will
use datagrams. In this case, that means making as few assumptions as
possible about how people will use the label, beyond the assumption
of immutability.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
