Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself

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

Hi Francis,

I fail to understand your conclusion here:

the mechanism describe by Greg and Erik seem to be compliant with 
RFC3697 to me...
I mean, in this approach the flow label used for a exchanging packets 
with a given src and dst addresses remains constant during the lifetime 
of the communication, so could you point out exactly which part of 
RFC3697 they are not compliant with?

thanks, marcelo

El 04/05/2005, a las 11:22, Francis Dupont escribió:

> 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