Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself

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

Hi Francis,

El 29/04/2005, a las 14:47, Francis Dupont escribió:

> I am in favor of a destination option

Could you comment on the issues that Erik and I sent w.r.t using the 
destiantion option?

(I am not sure where the archives are, but i can resend you the email 
if you want)

>  (don't add a new extension header,
> PLEASE!)

Why not adding a new extension header?

Regards, marcelo


>  because it seems a tag which can be used (and only the tag itself)
> for demultiplexing can be needed. IPsec has something very similar 
> named
> an SPI and the simple constraint for SPIs to be usable for 
> demultiplexing
> bt the receiver is they have to be assigned by the receiver.
> This is clearly impossible for a standard flow label so the shim tag 
> should
> be assigned (the whole tag or a part of the tag) by the receiver in the
> initial shim negociation phase. IMHO the IKE SPI procedure should be
> copied as it...
> The extra cost of a destination option should not be a problem if the 
> option
> is needed only in special cases (i.e., not in every packets).
>
> Regards
>
> Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr
>
> PS: even this is hard to implement, usually flow labels are from a
> pseudo-random generator and uniqueness is not checked.