Using the IPv6 Flow Label for Load Balancing in Server Farms
draft-ietf-intarea-flow-label-balancing-03

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.

(Brian Haberman) Yes

(Ted Lemon) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Richard Barnes) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

Comment (2013-10-08 for -02)
No email
send info

I see
      If the flow label of an incoming packet is non-zero, layer 3/4
      load balancers can use the 2-tuple {source address, flow label} as
      the session key for whatever load distribution algorithm they
      support. 

And later on

   The association between the flow label value and
   the server is stored in a table (often called stick table) so that
   future connections using the same flow label can be sent to the same
   server.

Isn't it?
   The association between the source address/flow label value and
   the server is stored in a table (often called stick table) so that
   future connections using the same flow label can be sent to the same
   server.

Spencer Dawkins No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2013-11-15)
No email
send info
Thanks for addressing my Discuss

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Barry Leiba) No Objection

Comment (2013-10-08 for -02)
No email
send info
One thought I had on reading this document is that it would seem to make sense as an Applicability Statement, rather than as Informational.  However, the answers to questions 5 and 6 in the shepherd writeup convinced me that Informational is all that's appropriate at this time.

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection

Comment (2013-10-04 for -01)
No email
send info
Only one piece of text to comment on:
Section 2., paragraph 4:

>    A careful reading of RFC 6437 shows that for a given source accessing
>    a well-known TCP port at a given destination, the flow label is, in
>    effect, a substitute for the source port number, found at a fixed
>    position in the layer 3 header.

 Where do you read this in RFC 6437? The text above sounds a bit mysterious in that respect. 
 Anyhow, even if RFC 6437 can be read in this way, your text is not correct as it stands. The flow label is in general not a substitute for TCP port number, as the port numbers are used at the end hosts to demultiplex the incoming traffic.

Here is a text proposal from my side to make your point much clearer:

A careful reading of RFC 6437 (according to Section X) shows that for load balancers relying on the flow label, the flow label is a substitute for the source port number, found at a fixed position in the layer 3 header,  for a given source accessing a well-known TCP port at a given destination.

(Sean Turner) No Objection