On 7/13/2017 12:39 PM, Dan Wing wrote: >> On Jul 13, 2017, at 6:52 AM, Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> FWIW, why not just add the entropy in the IPv6 flow ID rather than >> expecting it at the transport layer? Intermediate network devices should >> be relying only on the flow ID for that entropy anyway. > I don't know if IPv6 routers do ECMP using flow ID, and I don't know if > physical NICs do RSS CPU load balancing based on IPv6 flow ID. I don't either, but *if* they (either one) does, they really should.
RFC 6438 discusses this issue and implies that flow ID isn't used because it's mostly zero, but I wouldn't be surprised if that were to change over time. > >> (and yes, that doesn't solve the problem for IPv4, but perhaps that's a >> good reason to encourage use of IPv6) > Yeah, for v4 we're stuck with using source UDP port to provide the ECMP and > receiver benefit. > > > What of NAT64? Sure, that'd help, except we'd have to expect that an IPv4 router would know to jump into the IPv6 flow ID to do ECMP. That seems more of a stretch than the above, IMO. Joe _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
