[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself

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.


FWIW I disagree with this conclusion.

As I've stated in other emails, we can have a RFC 3697 compliant flow label usage for the communication using the ULIDs as locators, and when there is a need to use a different locator pair after a failure, we can have a different (RFC 3697 compliant AFAIK) usage of the flow label.
In all cases the <src locator, dst locator, flow label> would identify the flow. The fact that each locator pair implies a different flow is inherent in the desire to switch locator(s) when there is failure for the initial locator pair.

   Erik