Hi Remi,
On 10-10-26 12:24 PM, Rémi Després wrote:
Hi, Suresh,
Le 25 oct. 2010 à 19:57, Suresh Krishnan a écrit :
...
I strongly support the load-balancing use of the flow label.
Isn't it better, then, to quickly improve what we have for this, than inventing
new uses that would prevent backward compatibility?
I doubt that any new use of the flow label will be backward compatible.
Do you have any text about this proposal that I can read up on?
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.
What is clear is that:
- 20 bits is always better than 16 for any hash function.
Absolutely :-). But the question is whether more bits are **needed**.
- 20 it the number we have today.
Yes. And if we are not thinking about changing the current usage of the
flow label, it will certainly stay that way.
Thanks
Suresh
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
