On 11/07/2017 05:23 AM, Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) wrote: > Mark, > > Yeah... you may be right... we added the intro part to start the draft > because mentioning the construction "using Flow-Label" seems to have toxic > email storm effect on email lists around v6. Hence the disclaimers on > flow-label usage at the start of the text. Maybe it is wrongly placed and > gives the wrong impression indeed... it is for sure not the intent... It is > our intent to set flow-label on the outer tunnel header, and this is done by > the router which is imposing the IPv6 tunnel outer header, but we are not > fiddling on the fly with transit flow-labels at all. This seems not to break > any IPv6 rules I think.
My take: Make that as explicit as here, and I bet there will be no need to discuss further 8fingers crossed :-) ). > However, as you point out the case of SRv6 EH insert, is a different story > and requires a bit more thought. It is possible also, but needs to use the > SRv6 Opaque value-containers to carry the original Flow-label across the > domain to reconstruct the original flow-label value. Nevertheless, RFC8200 > seems rather restrictive on EH insertion, and hence we conveniently assumed > that chances are low for it to become reality due to IPv6 specification > complexities and we disregarded EH inject. Same here: If EH insertion is not allowed, it shouldn't even be mentioned. If eventually it is allowed, a new (possibly updating this one) doc could address the topic. Thanks! Cheers, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: [email protected] || [email protected] PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
