Hi Yiu, > > > ...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. >
... FB: Great, and thanks for widening the audience. BTW/ - one could construct (theoretical) use cases, where the use of the flow label as CID would at least change network behavior, e.g. imagine that a provider would use ECMP and the hash would include the flow label (as initially anticipated when the flow label was introduced). With the assumption of SA and DA (Gateway and AFTR) being the same for all flows, the hash of the flow label would determine ECMP behavior - desirable or not, it would have an impact. So am curious to see whether there are real use cases out there. Thanks, Frank _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
