Re: [Tsv-art] [Last-Call] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops-05

Brian E Carpenter <> Thu, 18 February 2021 19:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89CF53A1637; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 11:35:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9Fn_aCVJsjQq; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 11:35:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::432]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5D433A1636; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 11:35:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id b145so1991529pfb.4; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 11:35:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=C2OXtODUkYz8BON/Jz3e/2QLklsteTxw6dD8empsHGQ=; b=TpVyfYBStYGK9tOvMABXf30Pft7W3y1l4VvPkc6+tjnS+eqruHayMv9MXvU6DqynDf kAorf6C0zrpI/nb5O4+MofdksDDlbBhNPwos+8E2u5sKdDjPU8JiJ3nUawQJe2xvWlGl 3z+tcQvc3bi56nvGvWJo/Jxxgq71ie0Ekzi0PJuGcWIqleRCLwp5ujqxrcJ1s2R7FHlb mYKZ5pL+0YPtRsNEhS51A4OnOyAmkdylPgf3Obexb/Ulitv/LUXc3kmUHSkNI0S7k0cS yqt2Ws+a/1WBJ3C6R2pR9h9mRWu06TilituzadiyKUntclr5X7nyUu8tgdKrQtu9c2hB sQGw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=C2OXtODUkYz8BON/Jz3e/2QLklsteTxw6dD8empsHGQ=; b=fsYm3vKAAZ3do1jqHWQCVQ+qqorYJaB2+pEjbbQFFSgACcfHAACJcjp2MSc85xqJpK 4OY/mNsRO0JjS5/l9N7WuovFFFm8Tq1JIlOZKhaoOHRVGS81t//bmaKnjWD2Q/VlBA7X XTXe0wtmySnZJ2SvaaMoqwT/PcwiRlDQAl8W49f5FWZcG0a50Inh5p4DOW/pAVbluK03 u/2FMc1rjNEUgZLCvNDIpcACxtT/ja9O0nNivEb/tsVuO8JqoW3qRVM7N/u59fFL7GhM KoRP6pX8+Oy89iqiL/bKFnZgXb9BgmH8Nt/fAAD3Q/EmM1wkDvp+IaCdixhSPHWXTdxz w4Ug==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530370vS++HETDZ/nHy5kI0mJ3ekxRgige2QsxKQFBHG+ulO3vPC Js58tfKUS97tsTFzdUBXNDbSZIhrcCfPiA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz4mOAblbmTbfwXuwsRyScG4AT8UxGPJUKfB5G7xTgX7G5ZHo/8mjANfGGxP18EFuehXvpf6Q==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:5004:: with SMTP id e4mr5320927pgb.338.1613676906907; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 11:35:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id n11sm6453942pgm.30.2021. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 18 Feb 2021 11:35:05 -0800 (PST)
To: Fernando Gont <>, Gorry Fairhurst <>,
References: <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 08:35:01 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] [Last-Call] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops-05
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 19:35:10 -0000

On 19-Feb-21 06:56, Fernando Gont wrote:
> Hello, Gorry!
> Thanks a lot for your review. In-line....
> On 18/2/21 13:54, Gorry Fairhurst via Datatracker wrote:
>> * The ID also discusses use of the IPv6  Flow Label: This seems a little off
>> topic, but seems linked to EH implications on ECMP.  However, the final
>> sentence of this section is a reference to [Jaeggli-2018] which in turn
>> concludes that the IPv6 Flow Label should not be used it as a part of hashes
>> for load balancing. Yet, as far as I know, this is not the recommendation of
>> the IETF in 2020.  
> FWIW, we discuss the Flow Label a bit because the usual reaction would 
> be "why do you process the header chain for load-balancing, instead of 
> employing the Flow Label?"

However, Gorry is right that citing Joel's operational comments is only part
of the story. I immodestly suggest citing RFC 7098 too, for a discussion
of how the flow label can in principle be used for server load balancing.