Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself

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

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   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.
   
=> note that:
 - I've put an *if* at the critical place.
 - I've clearly stated I am in favor of the destination option.
I'll talk about 6LSA after...
   
Regards

Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr
   
   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.