Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Greg Daley wrote:
> Greg,
> Who thinks flow-labels are better than extension headers, otherwise
> shim6 looks too much like Mobile IPv6.

Agreed.

However, it may be worth thinking a bit about the shim6 packet 
exchange protocol itself.  Would that be based on UDP/TCP or 
destination options?

Because if it would make sense to model the shim6 exchange protocol 
with destination options, it would seem relatively easy to support 
both; carrying context tag could be done very easily if someone wants 
to do that, but the implementations would still have to support flow 
label.

Then flow label could be used as a useful optimization, but one could 
always fall back to using destination options as with the rest of the 
shim6 protocol exchange if one wanted to.

--
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings