On 2010-10-24 03:09, Randy Bush wrote: >> 1. I do think that the justification in the draft for such a major >> change, after 12 years work based on RFC 2460, is weak. > > how much do you want for hacking on an unused field, another glorious > pile of second system syndrome, for which dozens of people have tried to > find a use for over a decade? > >> So the chances that we actually see significant use of such reserved >> bits seem to be very low. > > lower or higher than the use of flow label?
Lower, at the moment, since we have people very interested in the flow label for ECMP/LAG. > not that i am impressed with this hack. but objecting on the basis that > flow label is a sacred cow seems somewhat specious. Yeah, well I did say that I haven't made my mind up, I want to see stronger arguments. The flow label isn't a sacred cow; I just want some discussion on the fact that reducing it to 16 bits has a significant effect on its guessability. We need to decide whether we care about that. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
