Dale,
On 2010-09-17 14:37, Dale W. Carder wrote:
> On Sep 16, 2010, at 7:03 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> This is yet another substantial rewrite following the recent
>> discussions on the list (and some off the list). Please read
>> it with new eyes - a diff from the previous version will not
>> be very helpful.
>
>
> Is there a reason that hosts/nodes couldn't set the flow
> label to a site-specific value (and likely not pseudo-random)
> especially considering that the value may/will be cleared at
> administrative boundaries?
Well, the reaction from the WG to earlier versions proposing
a local-use model were quite negative. There are many messages
in the archive about that.
>
> In RFC 3697, #3 Flow Labeling Requirements, it says that the
> source node can use a well defined sequence like incrementing
> values, whereas the emphasis in the draft is on pseudo-randomness.
Correct. A message I got from the discussion was that operators
are quite eager to find viable load balancing methods, and that
pseudo-random labels are useful for that. The other message was
that the present completely open spec has had the perverse result
that nobody has implemented anything at all.
Brian
>
> If I've missed that discussion, I apologize.
>
> Dale
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
