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

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> 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?

I was being drastic: we persuade the IESG that ECN is a massive
failure and have them reallocate the bits. (I'm not advocating
this solution; I simply think we should list all options.)

> The rest of Brian's note made sense to me

This is very reassuring :-)

   Brian