[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: IPv6 Flow Label
- To: philip_matthews@magma.ca
- Subject: Re: IPv6 Flow Label
- From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 08:57:12 +1200
- Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=RMrZN/HWy80cAy3+nUhxVb6kgQ4eQ9EpqCOSdHznh1Qo01XSWZimCj8BgUci/NlQ3Wq6sNFVpBNnhY7lX5gzEItjtlbRWB8pA1x8AA7ZAw7HDJp565Wu63jdS2ZuglO4u4+aPTUv9UHt8ZH2RttoSgLA49nbNujAt2clF0+wEvY=
- In-reply-to: <.1210192666@magma.ca>
- Organization: University of Auckland
- References: <.1210192666@magma.ca>
- User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
On 2008-05-08 08:37, Philip Matthews wrote:
> On Wed, 7-May-08, at 02:46 , Rémi Després wrote:
>> Brian E Carpenter wrote :
>>> So, I'd say that the default behavior for a relayed packet should be
>>> "Assign 0", and "Assign a new flow label according to RFC3697" should
>>> be optional (just as the whole of RFC3697 is optional). And this is
>>> entirely independent of whether or not the incoming packet has a
>>> non-zero flow label.
>
>> This is IMU the right behavior
>
>
>> I had essentially the same conclusion (see for example
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave/current/msg03789.html).
>
>> A slightly different wording could however, IMO, be preferable.
>> "Assign 0" and "RFC3697" should be placed on an equal footing, no one
>> being more "default" than the other: a source may have either behavior;
>> a destination or an intermediate node may not assume any of the two
>> behaviors in particular.
>
> If no one has any objections, I will adopt this behavior.
Sure. The main point is that a TURN relay should behave like
any other IPv6 speaker in this respect - no special rules.
Brian