Re: Flow label - the problem

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

On 25-apr-2005, at 15:23, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> It all goes to convince me that a destination option is the
> cleaner answer by far.

And:

> I think it is more a matter of not overloading those bits, which we  
> are
> sure to end up doing by using the flow label.

Well, flow label and an extra header are just two of the options. We  
can also forbid having more than one ULID set between two hosts or  
making the locator sets for different ULIDs disjoint.

Extra bytes cost real money in the real world every time a packet  
flows over the network, while the cleanliness of the solution or its  
implementation complexity are mostly one-time problems.

And I don't think a destination option is going to work as on  
reception, the shim must be applied before all other headers are  
processed. Think IPsec and fragmentation.