Hi, > but this field is, according to [RFC6294], not used in practice.
I don't think it's very useful to cite in 2017 a document published in 2011 based on realities in 2010 or earlier. Actually I think you can actually delete the whole phrase; since the proposal tries to respect RFC6437, it is irrelevant anyway. The draft cites RFC2460 but that is obsolete; please cite RFC8200 instead. > The use of the other 18 bits is not specified in this document > because is out of scope here. But it should follow [RFC6437]. I think is a slight simplification. What you are saying is the 18 bits should be a pseudo-random number (following the guidance given in 6437 for all 20 bits) and the 2 bits will have local semantics but will be set to 00 (I assume) for packets that leave the domain, thus retaining 18 bits of entropy instead of 20. (Which means there will only be about 256k possible flow label values, instead of a million, but that is still plenty of scope for load balancing.) Regards Brian On 07/11/2017 04:59, Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) wrote: > If any feedback or comments (preferably constructive), then please have the > discussion including SPRING WG in cc > > G/ > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 16:35 > To: Giuseppe Fioccola <[email protected]>; Van De Velde, > Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <[email protected]>; Muley, Praveen > (Nokia - US/Mountain View) <[email protected]>; Mauro Cociglio > <[email protected]> > Subject: New Version Notification for > draft-fioccola-spring-flow-label-alt-mark-01.txt > > > A new version of I-D, draft-fioccola-spring-flow-label-alt-mark-01.txt > has been successfully submitted by Giuseppe Fioccola and posted to the IETF > repository. > > Name: draft-fioccola-spring-flow-label-alt-mark > Revision: 01 > Title: Using the IPv6 Flow Label for Performance Measurement > with Alternate Marking Method in Segment Routing > Document date: 2017-10-26 > Group: Individual Submission > Pages: 8 > URL: > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fioccola-spring-flow-label-alt-mark-01.txt > Status: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fioccola-spring-flow-label-alt-mark/ > Htmlized: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fioccola-spring-flow-label-alt-mark-01 > Htmlized: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-fioccola-spring-flow-label-alt-mark-01 > Diff: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-fioccola-spring-flow-label-alt-mark-01 > > Abstract: > [RFC6294] makes a survey of Proposed Use Cases for the IPv6 Flow > Label. The IPv6 protocol includes a flow label in every packet > header, but this field is, according to [RFC6294], not used in > practice. This document describes how the alternate marking method > can be used as the passive performance measurement method in a IPv6 > domain. > > > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > The IETF Secretariat > > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
