> -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 1:57 PM > Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-krishnan-6man-header-reserved-bits-00.txt > > > I strongly support the load-balancing use of the flow label. The > question is how many bits are really required. I am not an operator and > hence cannot speak authoritatively, but talking to our customers leads > me to believe that 16 bits is sufficient for this purpose. I would love > to see some more data on this.
[WES] I guess the question as it regards this draft is, what if the actual answer is 17 or 18 bits? Is 2-3 bits still enough to reserve for an arbitrary future use? For that matter, is 4? Why or why not? Might be worth anonymizing and including some of what you've been told by your customers as rationale for the decision for 16 bits in your draft, and then we can debate whether that's accurate, or a good enough compromise because we aren't as concerned about the random-guess attacks Brian references. > > > It is hard for me to guess all the future uses, but I will take one > probable use case: re-ECN. [WES] ok, maybe - I'd have to do more research on that, both its implementation and the likelihood of significant deployment before agreeing/disagreeing with you. My point was: Document in draft along with hopefully other examples so that we can decide if we care more about that than having another 4 bits for FL loadbalancing :-) Thanks Wes George ________________________________ This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
