Hi Joel, Sorry for my ignorance. Can you explain to me what is mutable flow label or pint me to a reference I can read? You are right, this usage wasn't intended to substitute for transport protocol and port numbers in ECMP and LAG. But I guess FL could be used for other purposes other than ECMP and LAG as long as it wasn't caused any conflict.
Thanks, Yiu On 9/24/10 10:25 PM, "Joel M. Halpern" <[email protected]> wrote: > It is quite a stretch to claim that all traffic originating from (or in > the other direction destined to) a single customer constitute a > meaningful "flow". However, because RFC 3697 was carefully written to > be vague about this, it would be difficult to prove that it is incompatible. > > I would note that this usage of flow label would be inconsistent with > mutable flow labels, and would be inconsistent with the desire to use > flow label as a meaningful subsitute for transport protocol and port > numbers in ECMP and LAG logic. Whether either of those two incompatible > desires will themselves be standardized is extremely unclear at this > point, although there seems to be significant resistance to having flow > labels be mutable. > > Yours, > Joel M. Halpern > > On 9/24/2010 10:14 PM, Yiu L. Lee wrote: >> Hi gents, >> >> We have a design question of Flow Label. During the v6 transition, some DSL >> providers may want to create an IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel from the BRAS to the >> AFTR to continue to provider v4 access over a v6 core network. To identify a >> CPE behind the BRAS, we propose to use the Flow Label. Each CPE will be >> assigned with a Flow Label. This Flow Label represents a flow of all encap >> v4-in-v6 traffic behind a CPE. The Flow Label will be applied on the v6 >> address of the BRAS. v6 hosts behind the CPE will have their v6 addresses >> and be most probably from a different v6 prefix, so their flow labels won't >> be affected. >> >> You can find the details in: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhou-softwire-ds-lite-p2p-02 >> >> Our question is: "Is this usage compatible to RFC 3697?" We posted this >> question to Softwires and we were told to also ask 6man for input. >> >> Thanks, >> Yiu >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >> [email protected] >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
