Read the first paragraph of the Introduction carefully, in connection with the SHOULD in the second paragraph of section 3.
You could definitely provide a good reason for bypassing that SHOULD. Regards Brian On 03/05/2013 09:24, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > On May 2, 2013, at 2:17 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> That's why I think the way out is to use the wiggle room mentioned >> above. I hope we can. > > I'm afraid I don't see any wiggle room. Section 3 of RFC 6437 requires every > new flow - every new TCP session, in the most extreme reading of that - to > have a new flow label value. This proposal presumes that all of the flows > subject to the same security policy would be identified by the same flow > label. By your rubric, an operator who is not using the flow label for load > balancing MUST NOT use the flow label for a different purpose. Frankly, I > wish you luck enforcing the ruling. Operators have a funny habit of doing > what they deem important. Our job in the IETF is to help them be able to do > that using software and hardware from multiple interoperable sources. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
