Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself

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

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   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 they have a different definition of what is a flow and
how the flow state establishment method works.

   because I don't see any  
   problems with different things looking at the same flow label in  
   order to accomplish different goals.

=> the fact that all the proposed uses of flow labels are incompatible
doesn't disturb you just a bit?

Regards

Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr

PS: one day someone will propose and deploy something which really uses
flow labels, and at this time he'll have to do some choices making
flow labels unsuitable for other uses. Of course if we really insist
to keep flow labels open to all proposals we should never get this.
BTW IMHO this will be accepted only if the addressed issue (aka
the related service model) is bound to QoS...