I believe it is compatible as stated, but with two provisos: 1. There needs to be a complete specification, to check definitively.
2. There's active debate in 6MAN about changing the spec for the flow label; personally I don't expect any changes that would invalidate the usage below. Brian On 2010-08-24 23:34, Yiu L. Lee wrote: > I want to follow up this topic on the list. I exchanged few off-listed > emails with Brian to ask his opinion of using flow label. It seem the way > the ER to encapsulate every packet of a given host is a compatible use of > flow label. Brian, can you confirm that please? > > Thanks, > Yiu > > > On 7/30/10 4:57 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> In RFC 3697, it says: >>>> >>>> "A flow is a sequence of packets sent from a particular source to a >>>> particular unicast, anycast, or multicast destination that the source >>>> desires to label as a flow." >>>> >>>> It later says the usage of a flow: >>>> >>>> "The usage of the 3-tuple of the Flow Label and the Source and >>>> Destination Address fields enables efficient IPv6 flow >>>> classification, where only IPv6 main header fields in fixed positions >>>> are used." >>>> >>>> I am confused why we can't use a flow label to effectively identify a flow >>>> from a host behind a CPE in the AFTR. In what part this usage is against >>>> the >>>> specification? >> The devil is in the details. You'd have to define the use case completely >> before I (as a co-author of 3697) would try to answer the question. >> >> The use case still has to work with hosts that do not set a flow label, >> which is of course essentially all of them today. >> >> Brian > > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
