[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: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 11:41:41 +0200
Cc: shim6 <shim6@psg.com>
In-reply-to: <200505050810.j458AcnV038334@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr>
References: <200505050810.j458AcnV038334@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr>

On 5-mei-2005, at 10:10, Francis Dupont wrote:

there can not be two different simultaneous uses of flow labels

Please tell us why you think this is so, because I don't see any problems with different things looking at the same flow label in order to accomplish different goals.

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