I think it would be sufficient to include a paragraph that mentions that this solution can introduce packet reordering and variable delays and that packet scheduling/load-balancing implementations should take this into consideration. Without going into details on how to solve it.
Marcus -----Original Message----- From: Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> Sent: Friday, 12 April 2024 17:00 To: Marcus Ihlar <marcus.ih...@ericsson.com> Cc: tsv-...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ipsecme-multi-sa-performance....@ietf.org; ipsec@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-multi-sa-performance-06 On Wed, 10 Apr 2024, Marcus Ihlar via Datatracker wrote: Thanks for your review. > Load balancing algorithms and policies are likely best left as > implementation details but I do think a paragraph in the operational > considerations section could be warranted. We had some Linux details in there before but were asked to remove those and some people wouldn't implement it similarly. So I am not sure what you would want to add in the operational considerations section. Paul _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
