Hi, Brian,
On 18/2/21 16:35, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 19-Feb-21 06:56, Fernando Gont 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.
Good grief! I thought we were referencing this one already (but looks
like we're not) Any suggestion on how to reference it?
E.g., we could do:
Thus, ECMP and Hash-based Load-Sharing [rfc6434] [RFC7098] should be
possible
without the need to process the entire IPv6 header chain to obtain
upper-layer information to identify lows.
plus adding it ALONG WITH RFC6438 here:
making Flow Label-based ECMP
and Hash-based Load-Sharing [RFC6438] feasible.
xor add this:
[RFC7098] discusses how the IPv6 FLow Label can used to enhance layer
3/4 (L3/4) load distribution and balancing for large server farms.
right after:
Thus, ECMP and Hash-based Load-
Sharing should be possible without the need to process the entire
IPv6 header chain to obtain upper-layer information to identify
flows.
Alternatively, if you can think of a better way to do it, please do let
us know.
Thanks!
Regards,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
