Re: I-D ACTION:draft-nordmark-multi6-noid-02.txt

["Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@mcsr-labs.org>]

Maybe it's too close to San Diego for e-mail to make sense to me, but
...

From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
To: "Multi6" <multi6@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 2:15 AM
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-nordmark-multi6-noid-02.txt

>
> 3. I am also uncomfortable about "the bit." The whole of section 6
is, well,
> a bit kludgy. The only clean solution IMHO is a shim header, which
knocks
> 8 bytes off the user's MTU. In the catgeory of possible
alternatives, we could
> in theory add
>   - encode a couple of bits in the flow label
>   - get back the ECN bits

Huh? Does this mean (1) we bag ECN in general, (2) we bag ECN for
multihoming and hope no one gets confused about interpreting
overloaded bits, or (3) we're totally confusing Spencer?

The rest of Brian's note made sense to me, I just couldn't parse this
part.

Thanks,

Spencer