Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself

[marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>]

Hi Pekka,

El 26/04/2005, a las 7:24, Pekka Savola escribió:

> 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.

I don't know...
This is the option that convinces me less... It has the added 
complexity of dealing with both approaches. I would argue to pick just 
one of them and deal with it. I mean, SHIM looks already pretty complex 
to me without having multiple mechanisms to perform the same task.

Regards, marcelo


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