[RRG] Re: Ivip6: number of "Flow Label" bits required

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>]

On 2008-08-03 18:01, Robin Whittle wrote:
> Short version:   The Ivip6 (formerly FLOWv6) proposal won't
>                  need the full 2^20 range of bits in the IPv6
>                  Flow Label.  Each possible value is for a
>                  BGP-advertised prefix for forwarding packets to
>                  when they are addressed to the new kind of
>                  end-user network.


OK, explained like that, it seems coherent with Pouzin's
proposal in 1974 that the catenet address format should be

<Format> <PSN name> <Local name>

where you propose to put the <PSN name> in the current flow label
field. Pouzin's full explanation read:
"There is no need to interpret the destination address any more than
required to find an appropriate gateway in the correct direction.
Putting gateway names in addresses is unacceptable, as it would
tie up addressing and network topology. Thus, only PSN [packet
switched network] names should be used as catenet [internet]
addresses. Delivering a message to a final destination is carried
out only by the final PSN."

[Pouzin74] Pouzin, L., Interconnection of packet switching networks,
7th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Supplement,
pp. 108-109, 1974.

     Brian

--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg