Hi Jari,
Thanks for the review.
On 2011-06-20 07:47, Jari Arkko wrote:
> I have reviewed this draft. It is well written, justifies its
> recommendations and I believe it is ready to move forward. I have asked
> for an IETF Last Call. However, I did see one editorial issue and one
> technical issue that I would like you to discuss and correct if
> necessary (even during the Last Call):
>
>> If there is a high
>> proportion of tunnel traffic, traffic will not be distributed as
>> intended across the paths between R1 and R2.
>>
>
> ... high proportion of traffic from one or small number of tunnels,
> traffic will not be ...
OK
>
>> * Intermediate IPv6 router(s) will presumably encounter a mixture
>> of tunneled traffic and normal IPv6 traffic. Because of this,
>> the design may also include {protocol, dest port, source port}
>> as input keys to the ECMP and/or LAG hash algorithms, to
>> provide additional entropy for flows whose flow label is set to
>> zero, including non-tunneled traffic flows. Whether this is
>> appropriate depends on the expected traffic mix and on
>> considerations of implementation efficiency.
>>
>
> Really, I don't think we are constructing routers that could only route
> tunnel packets. A device such as a router needs to be capable of
> handling both tunnel and non-tunnel packets. Indeed, the router will in
> general not even be able to know if it is processing tunnel packets. I
> would recommend changing the above "may also include" to "should also
> include", and striking the last sentence.
Personally, I think you're right. Should that be a normative SHOULD?
We have a small handful of other minor edits that have come in since WGLC.
Do you want us to post a new version?
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
