RE: Working Group last call for adding RFC6437 Flow Label support to Node Requirements bis document

support

Thanks,

Wes

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Bob Hinden
> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 12:00 PM
> To: 6man Mailing List
> Cc: Brian Haberman; Bob Hinden; Ralph Droms
> Subject: Working Group last call for adding RFC6437 Flow Label support
> to Node Requirements bis document
>
> This email starts a one week 6MAN Working Group last call for adding
> text and a reference to RFC6437 "IPv6 Flow Label Specification" to the
> Node Requirements bis document current in AUTH48 state.  The document
> is currently on hold in the RFC Editor waiting for resolution of this
> issue.
>
> The proposed text, first sent to the ipv6@ietf.org mailing list on
> November 2, 2011 (included below), is:
>
> > All nodes SHOULD support RFC 6437, IPv6 Flow Label Specification,
> > defines the IPv6 Flow Label.  Specifically:
> >
> >    "Forwarding nodes such as routers and load distributors MUST NOT
> >     depend only on Flow Label values being uniformly distributed. "
> >
> >    "It is therefore RECOMMENDED  that source hosts support the flow
> >     label by setting the flow label field for all packets of a given
> flow to the
> >     same value chosen from an approximation to a discrete uniform
> distribution. "
>
> The chairs have discussed this with the Internet Area Directors and
> they recommended this course of action.  This topic is also on the
> agenda for the 6man session at the Taipei IETF.
>
> Substantive comments and statements of support for taking this action
> should be sent to the mailing list.  This last call will end on
> November 17, 2011.
>
> Regards,
> Bob Hinden & Brian Haberman
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> > From: <john.loughney@nokia.com>
> > Date: November 2, 2011 7:50:35 PM PDT
> > To: <ipv6@ietf.org>
> > Subject: Flow Label support in the Node Requirements bis document
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > There has been some discussions whether or not we should add support
> > for the Flow Label in Soon to be RFC 6434
> > <draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-11.txt> As a straw man proposal, if we
> add Support, I would suggest the following text:
> >
> > All nodes SHOULD support RFC 6437, IPv6 Flow Label Specification,
> > defines the IPv6 Flow Label.  Specifically:
> >
> >    "Forwarding nodes such as routers and load distributors MUST NOT
> >      depend only on Flow Label values being uniformly distributed. "
> >
> >    "It is therefore RECOMMENDED  that source hosts support the flow
> >      label by setting the flow label field for all packets of a given
> flow to the
> >      same value chosen from  an approximation to a discrete uniform
> distribution. "
> >
> > I'd like to ask the wg the following:
> >
> > 1) Is the above text acceptable?
> > 2) Do you support adding the text? If no, please suggest text, unless
> you do not support adding
> >     Flow label support at all (please say so).
> >
> > John
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > ipv6@ietf.org
> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.