Re: draft-nordmark-multi6-sim-00.txt

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>]

On 26 okt 2003, at 0:36, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

> Regarding your draft draft-nordmark-multi6-sim-00.txt, I'm interested 
> to know if you are considered the implications of using the
> next header field ?. Let me explain.

[doing special header processing is expensive in routers with hardware 
IPv6 support]

Yes, this is a good point. I like the idea of using the 6 bit diffserv 
field for this. This field is modifyable in transit and doesn't impact 
any processing at the receiving end or in routers that don't support 
diffserv or type of service processing.

There is a slight disadvantage that this field is only 6 bits, but I 
don't think it's necessary to populate all possible combinations of 
service levels and yes/no on the rewriting, so in practice this 
shouldn't have to be a huge problem.