Re: [dhcwg] Load Balancing for DHCPv6

Bud Millwood <budm@weird-solutions.com> Thu, 06 September 2012 21:36 UTC

Return-Path: <budmillwood@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3746321F8762 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 14:36:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q2nUwybUUXfM for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 14:36:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com (mail-ie0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B842E21F8716 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 14:36:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ieak13 with SMTP id k13so4328510iea.31 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:36:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ttEmeXYaykiw3naQe5Yu9dskVfKRxox98RnwFXPcDhY=; b=WAeAWBmBIE62+SmF5+KSU3q/2WuVQOPBHZDRyucVj0EHV1/QaJ14pwJE7p6xzA3KvF XwKjCh8QRiID2ij4rZN4voyh5pekdUZo1EJar/RnYTA3rhXEkOco60qlTg09PdNe85X0 XP+pu7nvx1YUMFnu386Swxc4BbQsDto7mx+dOpumm8BVQPD50KWQ5jby/d1RpqZQ7xN7 //XFzTt67EMbW33nXD6CJ2nKCx/RAQhW+SKCuPVNyZKWTBRID7ATKIlOuDDCKq/4oS6e Jaq+ej654wsC0AZTX5uBOLh5XvLFekLiQ83rr3CgEyCzbNR636C2ECbmAv4Fh5t95pz5 JHfw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.220.169 with SMTP id px9mr5171566igc.8.1346967415320; Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:36:55 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: budmillwood@gmail.com
Received: by 10.64.94.228 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 14:36:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CDDB9016-BE11-489A-9361-0172D96A464C@nominum.com>
References: <CAL10_Bqa4ftiVhyyf0ezwKR7mzAEOLNi_K3EJFPFUzPnz7QGPw@mail.gmail.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E0F4F3093@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <CAL10_Br=OcWZuar1fDOopevTy_W-3g9TsYqo61rOWm4tKkuYgg@mail.gmail.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E61118003F@GAALPA1MSGUSR9N.ITServices.sbc.com> <CAL10_BpXdx03WfV1PeMKg1zYc1dAFKe1CDNdrcNf45+_EVCBPg@mail.gmail.com> <CDDB9016-BE11-489A-9361-0172D96A464C@nominum.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 23:36:55 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: KCjeWm9rbLB1snZBfCWHIm9r9sg
Message-ID: <CAOpJ=k2CJS=FuUvFwOq=s2m871_qfo=xROsW=fx0E48w2wxAqQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bud Millwood <budm@weird-solutions.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Andre Kostur <akostur@incognito.com>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Load Balancing for DHCPv6
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 21:36:56 -0000

> Does anybody recall why the original load balancing had the 16 byte
> restriction?
>
>
> Nope.   It might be worth visiting the question of whether the hash
> algorithm is the right one.

Any particular reason for revisiting the hash algorithm itself, as
opposed to just dropping the 16 byte limit in DHCPv6?

- Bud