Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself

[Greg Daley <Greg.Daley@eng.monash.edu.au>]

Hi Francis, 

I there seem to be a lot of opinions going around, so 
instead of contributing to the torrent, I'll ask a
question for my own education.

----- Original Message -----
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>
Date: Wednesday, May 4, 2005 7:22 pm
Subject: Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself

> 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.

Is the incompatability you're considering based on a semantic 
interpretation
of different bits within the flow label (perhaps a little like 
diffserv)?
Or (potentially) that hosts select flow labels in negotiation with the
routing infrastructure?

I guess these are uses which may clash with shim6.

Did you have something else in mind?

I think I've been treating it as an immutable number for a
particular path.

Greg