Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself

[Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>]

At 07:53 PM 2/05/2005, Francis Dupont wrote:
>  In your previous mail you wrote:
>
>    > => basically as there is no way to deal with a new extension header
>    > without
>    > modifying code or more, this will kill all the boxes which are looking
>    > inside packets for good or less good reasons.
>
>    I don't think that in this stadium of IPv6 deployment this is that
>    huge a deal.
>
> => I am sorry but I believe to propose major changes in IPv6 is no more
> a good idea today. Perhaps you have a little deployment where you are
> but don't expect it is the case everywhere...

I suspect that Shim6 is more of the nature of a "major change" than
an "insignificant tweak", and the concept of explicit use of extension
headers  for signalling appeals to me much more than hacking away at
header bits in the flow label. I would suggest that we should indeed
attempt to engineer this using extension headers where extension
headers are logically required.


regards,

  Geoff


 Geoff