On 2010-10-27 17:48, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > Hi Randy, > >>> I doubt that any new use of the flow label will be backward >>> compatible. >> ok. i give. backward compatible to what? > > With the usage of the flow label as defined by RFC3697. > Sorry for not being specific.
I believe it is the case that any usage that is compatible with RFC 3697 would remain compatible with draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-04 (but *not* with earlier versions of that draft), except for one fact of life - the current draft recognises the reality that flow label might in the real world be changed in transit, whereas RFC 3697 asserted that it must not be changed and assumed everyone would obey. In answer to Randy, the motivation for this flurry of activity is to respond to operators who have said that they really want to use the flow label for ECMP or LAG. We'd like to do what we can to make that happen. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
