On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
'flow label bits alone make a poor material for a hash key'... isn't
this the reverse of saying that we'll (operators) require vendors to
use flow-label for hashing on ECMP/LAG? If so, then... I don't think
flow-label's going to cut it.
Please note the word "alone" in the above extract from RFC3697. [...]
And from the POV of LISP, this is not relevant. In IPv6, the hash key
should probably consist of four-tuple {srcIP, dstIP, traffic class,
flow label}. As such, the addition of flow label would make a great
addition to the total hash key for the purposes of this discussion.
Even though the flow label is set to zero, hashing would still work
just fine but on IP/tclass granularity. By adding flow label, you
could get finer granularity for flows that do set it.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
