Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself

[Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>]

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   > => basically as there is no way to deal with a new extension header  
   > without
   > modifying code or more, this will kill all the boxes which are looking
   > inside packets for good or less good reasons.
   
   I don't think that in this stadium of IPv6 deployment this is that  
   huge a deal.
   
=> I am sorry but I believe to propose major changes in IPv6 is no more
a good idea today. Perhaps you have a little deployment where you are
but don't expect it is the case everywhere...

   Also, looks like RFC 2460 dropped the ball here. It actually draws  
   extension headers as having a next header and a length field in a  
   fixed place, but then doesn't say that all extension headers should  
   look like that.
   
=> as a new extension header needs new code this doesn't matter.

   Have you been reading other posts to this list the past week?

=> yes.

   I think  
   they make it pretty clear that using the flow label for demux can be  
   done without impact to other flow label use, at the cost of some  
   extra complexity when selecting the flow label for a new session.

=> but the flow label selection is already an essential part of
RFC 3697. IMHO this proposal is acceptable only because there is
currently no standard flow label use at all... I.e., it is possible
to get rid of RFC 3697 and to reserve the flow label for shim6, but
you have to go this way clearly if you'd like to take it.

Regards

Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr

PS: I still believe the best is a destination option.