Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself

To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Subject: Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself
From: Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com>
Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 10:45:12 -0700
Cc: shim6 <shim6@psg.com>
In-reply-to: <1C298F08-D97F-4F72-A384-8B68BE935778@muada.com>
References: <200505051253.j45CrVcK039048@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr> <AE1F9595-7445-4A6E-B117-13280EF4E99C@muada.com> <427BFE4B.6050909@sun.com> <1C298F08-D97F-4F72-A384-8B68BE935778@muada.com>
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050323)

Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

Simply going for the option means adding bytes to all packets forever.


Nobody has argued that there would be extra bytes in very packet.

We only need to carry the demux information to the peer when the locator pair is different than the ULID pair.

   Erik

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself
  - From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>

References:
- Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself
  - From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>
- Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself
  - From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
- Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself
  - From: Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com>
- Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself
  - From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>