Using the IPv6 Flow Label for Equal Cost Multipath Routing and Link Aggregation in Tunnels

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2011-07-13)
A reference to draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-label-00 would seem appropriate since they seek to achieve the same though at different layers.

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

(Wesley Eddy) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

Comment (2011-07-13 for -)
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.

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(David Harrington) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection

Comment (2011-07-11 for -)
I agree with the DISCUSS from Pete Resnick that this seems like a Standards Track document, not a BCP.

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

Comment (2011-07-11 for -)
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?

(Sean Turner) No Objection

Comment (2011-07-14 for -)
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.