Using the IPv6 Flow Label for Equal Cost Multipath Routing and Link Aggregation in Tunnels
draft-ietf-6man-flow-ecmp-05
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
05 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Stewart Bryant |
2012-08-22
|
05 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Pete Resnick |
2011-09-08
|
05 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent. |
2011-09-07
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2011-09-07
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2011-09-07
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2011-09-07
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2011-09-07
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2011-09-07
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Approval announcement text regenerated |
2011-09-07
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-09-06
|
05 | Jari Arkko | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup. |
2011-09-06
|
05 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot comment] Thanks you for addressing my concerns. |
2011-09-06
|
05 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stewart Bryant has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2011-07-22
|
05 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New ID Needed |
2011-07-22
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-flow-ecmp-05.txt |
2011-07-14
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Removed from agenda for telechat |
2011-07-14
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation. |
2011-07-14
|
05 | (System) | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pete Resnick has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by IESG Secretary |
2011-07-14
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Intended Status has been changed to Proposed Standard from BCP |
2011-07-14
|
05 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-07-14
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-07-14
|
05 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] Maybe add (e.g., by using IPsec between the two tunnel end-points) to the end of the 2nd sentence in the security considerations. Just … [Ballot comment] Maybe add (e.g., by using IPsec between the two tunnel end-points) to the end of the 2nd sentence in the security considerations. Just to provide an example of how it might be done. |
2011-07-14
|
05 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-07-13
|
05 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-07-13
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] There is no mention of the fact that individual nodes in a network are free to implement different algorithms without impacting the interoperability … [Ballot comment] There is no mention of the fact that individual nodes in a network are free to implement different algorithms without impacting the interoperability or function of the network. |
2011-07-13
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-07-13
|
05 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-07-13
|
05 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot comment] A reference to draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-label-00 would seem appropriate since they seek to achieve the same though at different layers. |
2011-07-13
|
05 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot discuss] Since the document is giving advice on ECMP, it should alert the reader to the polarization problem. The document should also alert the … [Ballot discuss] Since the document is giving advice on ECMP, it should alert the reader to the polarization problem. The document should also alert the reader to the OAM issues that arise with ECMP. |
2011-07-13
|
05 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
2011-07-13
|
05 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-07-11
|
05 | Jari Arkko | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead. |
2011-07-11
|
05 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot comment] I agree with the DISCUSS from Pete Resnick that this seems like a Standards Track document, not a BCP. |
2011-07-11
|
05 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-07-11
|
05 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot comment] I found this document clear and hope it has the impact the group intends. I support Pete's discuss though - why did the … [Ballot comment] I found this document clear and hope it has the impact the group intends. I support Pete's discuss though - why did the group choose BCP as the intended status for this document? |
2011-07-11
|
05 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-07-11
|
05 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-07-11
|
05 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot discuss] Section 3 of this document (the main section) seems like protocol to me. (For example, "Inner packets MUST be encapsulated in an outer … [Ballot discuss] Section 3 of this document (the main section) seems like protocol to me. (For example, "Inner packets MUST be encapsulated in an outer IPv6 packet whose source and destination addresses are those of the tunnel end points (TEPs)".) Therefore, I see no reason for this not to be on the Standards Track. It seems like it has interoperability impacts and gives normative implementation guidance. |
2011-07-11
|
05 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
2011-07-11
|
05 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-07-11
|
05 | David Harrington | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-07-09
|
05 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Brian Weis. |
2011-07-05
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-flow-ecmp-04.txt |
2011-07-04
|
05 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call. |
2011-06-29
|
05 | Jari Arkko | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2011-07-14 |
2011-06-29
|
05 | David Harrington | Request for Last Call review by TSVDIR is assigned to Nandita Dukkipati |
2011-06-29
|
05 | David Harrington | Request for Last Call review by TSVDIR is assigned to Nandita Dukkipati |
2011-06-28
|
05 | Amanda Baber | We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. |
2011-06-23
|
05 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Brian Weis |
2011-06-23
|
05 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Brian Weis |
2011-06-20
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2011-06-20
|
05 | Amy Vezza | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: … State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (Using the IPv6 flow label for equal cost multipath routing and link aggregation in tunnels) to BCP The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to consider the following document: - 'Using the IPv6 flow label for equal cost multipath routing and link aggregation in tunnels' as a BCP The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-07-04. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract The IPv6 flow label has certain restrictions on its use. This document describes how those restrictions apply when using the flow label for load balancing by equal cost multipath routing, and for link aggregation, particularly for IP-in-IPv6 tunneled traffic. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-flow-ecmp/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-flow-ecmp/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2011-06-20
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-flow-ecmp-03.txt |
2011-06-19
|
05 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2011-06-19
|
05 | Jari Arkko | Ballot has been issued |
2011-06-19
|
05 | Jari Arkko | Created "Approve" ballot |
2011-06-19
|
05 | Jari Arkko | Last Call was requested |
2011-06-19
|
05 | Jari Arkko | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation. |
2011-06-19
|
05 | Jari Arkko | Last Call text changed |
2011-06-19
|
05 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2011-06-19
|
05 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2011-06-19
|
05 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2011-06-19
|
05 | Jari Arkko | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-06-19
|
05 | Jari Arkko | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested. |
2011-06-06
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Document Writeup draft-ietf-6man-flow-ecmp-02.txt As required by RFC 4858 , this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This … Document Writeup draft-ietf-6man-flow-ecmp-02.txt As required by RFC 4858 , this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated September 17, 2008. (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Brian Haberman is the document shepherd for this document, has reviewed this version, and believes it is ready for IESG review. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? This draft has been reviewed by both members of the 6man WG and the network operations community. The shepherd does not have concerns with the depth or breadth of these reviews. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? No. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. No. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? This document has strong concurrence from a small number of WG participants. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? This draft has two ID nits warnings which can be corrected during the next editing pass. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. All references are in order. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? N/A. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? N/A. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary The IPv6 flow label has certain restrictions on its use. This document describes how those restrictions apply when using the flow label for load balancing by equal cost multipath routing, and for link aggregation, particularly for IP-in-IPv6 tunneled traffic. Working Group Summary This document was reviewed by the 6man WG and represents the consensus of that groups. Document Quality This document has been reviewed by the members and co-chairs of the 6MAN working group. |
2011-06-06
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Draft added in state Publication Requested |
2011-06-06
|
05 | Amy Vezza | [Note]: 'Brian Haberman (brian@innovationslab.net) is the document shepherd for this document.' added |
2011-05-02
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-flow-ecmp-02.txt |
2011-02-09
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-flow-ecmp-01.txt |
2010-12-02
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-flow-ecmp-00.txt |