[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself

To: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>
Subject: Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself
From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 14:56:00 +0200
Cc: greg.daley@eng.monash.edu.au, Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>, shim6 <shim6@psg.com>
In-reply-to: <200505040922.j449Mnss034137@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr>
Organization: IBM
References: <200505040922.j449Mnss034137@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113

Er, with my flow label hat on, I don't think that is OK
at all. Shim6 has no particular right to take over the
Flow Label, any more than 6LSA does.

    Brian

Francis Dupont wrote:

The point I'd like to make (and about which we should agree) is that
it is hard or impossible to keep full/real RFC 3697 compliance and
shim6 goal support, so if we decide to follow the flow label way the
best is to obsolete the RFC 3697 and to reserve the 20 bit field
currently named flow label to shim6 usage.

Regards

Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself
  - From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>

References:
- Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself
  - From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>

Prev by Date: Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself
Next by Date: Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself
Previous by thread: Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself
Next by thread: Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread