Hi Frank,
> ...FB: Well, the concern is a more general one. I'm not disagreeing that we > might be able to have flow policies even with the new use of the flow label. > The thing that I think requires more discussion is whether people see a need > for using the IPv6 flow label in the core of their network, even if GI-DS-lite > with this new encapsulation would be used within the very same deployment. If > there is such a use, the new encap might create challenges... - which we > should understand upfront. I don't know all the foreseen use-cases for the > flow label, hence my earlier question on whether the question has been taken > to a larger audience (especially 6man). > I don't disagree, but the ip address used by the CPE is only used by the CPE sourced traffic, this is why I think it is safe to be used. One can consider all the IPv4 traffic of a household is a flow (for encap). In this setup, this is rather true and should not affect other flow label for native v6 traffic. I also want to hear more inputs. This is why I moved this discussion to the mailing list. We will also post this question to 6man. >> >> In the end, we want to propose an simple alternative rather than >> enforcing the operators to use GRE or MPLS. > > ...FB: IMHO this is not about enforcing, this is more about ensuring that we > don't break anything. Once we're sure that we don't break anything and can > also articulate the value of the new encap, I personally don't see any issues > with expanding the set of encap types. > Yes, this is my belief too. Thanks, Yiu _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
