Re: draft-wang-6man-flow-label-reflection

[Jeroen Massar <[e-mail]>]

On 2014-11-14 22:13, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
[..]
>> And also note that any router on the path is allowed (they "MAY") per
>> the RFC to overwrite the label if they see fit.
> 
> Once the label is set, that is not true (but there is an exception for
> paranoid firewalls). In reality the field can be forged, but so can
> anything in the IPv6 header.
> 
>> The primary use of the Flow Label seems to be Load Balancing, but load
>> balancing does not work as doing that based on src/flow-label or just
>> flow-label breaks ICMPv6 PTBs.
> 
> That case is broken with or without the flow label.

Thus you are saying that we do not need the Flow Label?

Because which case is left then?

>> As such, the primary use case of Flow Labels is broken. Thus making that
>> field useless.
> 
> No, it's stateless load balancing with fragmentation that's broken.

Stateful load balancing works also without the Flow Label.

And application layer proxies, eg a HTTP proxy (the way Load Balancing
used to be done), does not have a use for a Flow Label either.

Hence, which case for using the Flow Label is there?

Greets,
 Jeroen