Le 23 oct. 2010 à 16:09, Randy Bush a écrit : >> 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?
Before IPv6 traffic becomes really high, the need for efficient IPv6 load balancing remained low. That's why the need to fix loose ends of flow labels hasn't been pressing so far. Fixing flow-label details, so that their intended use becomes practical, makes IMHO more sense than throwing the baby out with the bath water. > not that i am impressed with this hack. but objecting on the basis that > flow label is a sacred cow seems somewhat specious. Deprecating FLs, instead of fixing them for their intended purpose, requires IMHO more solid reasons than just their not being a "sacred cow". (They indeed aren't a "sacred cow", but they still are the IETF endorsed purpose of a 20-bit field present in IPv6 headers.) Regards, RD > > randy > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
