On 10/6/10 9:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > This is a minor update with clarifications, and removal of some > accidentally duplicated text. Comments welcome, of course, but there > isn't intended to be significant technical change from the previous > version. > > We would like comments on what to do next with this draft. Should it > be dealt with here, or somewhere else in the IETF? >
I don't see any reason to move this document. It is defining a use case for base IPv6 header field and I think that should be dealt with in the WG that is responsible for that field. Regards, Brian > Brian + Shane > > -------- Original Message -------- Subject: I-D > Action:draft-carpenter-flow-ecmp-03.txt Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 > 17:45:01 -0700 (PDT) From: [email protected] Reply-To: > [email protected] To: [email protected] > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > > Title : Using the IPv6 flow label for equal cost multipath > routing and link aggregation in tunnels Author(s) : B. > Carpenter, S. Amante Filename : > draft-carpenter-flow-ecmp-03.txt Pages : 9 Date > : 2010-10-06 > > The IPv6 flow label has certain restrictions on its use. This > document describes how those restrictions apply when using the flow > label for load balancing by equal cost multipath routing, and for > link aggregation, particularly for tunneled traffic. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-flow-ecmp-03.txt > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
