Hi Yiu, Response below, with an added direct copy to Brian. Le 25 sept. 2010 à 04:14, Yiu L. Lee a écrit :
> 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. With RFC 3697 as is, it doesn't seem to be compatible. This is because the RFC specifies a very specific way to assign FLs to flows. Now, in the revision under study, what you propose should IMHO be unambiguously permitted. (For a load-balancing application between BRAS and AFTRs, your proposal is clearly a good choice.) Regards, RD > > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
