I'm generally OK with this text. Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> writes: > o This option, if implemented, would presumably be of value in > first-hop or ingress routers. It might place a considerable per- > packet processing load on them, even if they adopted a stateless > method of flow identification and label assignment. Also, it > should not interfere with host-to-router load sharing [RFC4311].
This sentence is ambiguous. is the "should not" a statement of fact, or is it a directive, i.e., is there some implication for implementors that they need to be aware of so as not to intefere with 4311? Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
