On May 2, 2013, at 1:12 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: >> Any such method MUST >> NOT disturb nodes taking part in the stateless scenario just >> described. Thus, any node that sets flow label values according to a >> stateful scheme MUST choose labels that conform to Section 3 of this >> specification. Further details are not discussed in this document. > > That's the bit that -ospf-dst-flowlabel-routing does not conform to, as > far as I can see.
It may be so. Can you point me to an implementation depending on 6437, either host, router, or load balancer? Here's my frustration. The Flow label, if one goes into the musty dusty mists of time, does not do what it was originally designed to do, which is identify flows in the Nimrod routing model; to do that, it would need to be fungible in the network. It has been largely replaced by MPLS, which can stack its equivalent. As you know (you wrote half of them), there are a several RFCs that propose uses of the flow label, and those uses differ from each other. None of them obsolete the others, so they are all on the table. You are taking one in that series and pushing it as the "one true religion", and stating that it is therefore off limits to use the flow label for a specific well defined use case. I call foul. If RFC 6437 is the only game in town, at least obsolete RFCs 1809 and 6294, and the section proposing a use case for it in 2460. And explain to me why it would be inappropriate for a host (virtual or physical) or a hypervisor to set a flow label and use it end to end for a specific use case in a data center? -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
