RE: Flow label and its uses

["Bora Akyol" <bora@broadcom.com>]

A pointer to some reference material on NIMROD:

http://ana-3.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/nimrod/nimsl.html
 
http://ana-3.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/nimrod/docs.html

http://www.ir.bbn.com/projects/nimrod

Is there any use in keeping flow label as is,
or should be relabeled as "Reserved"?

I think there is some agreement that
the label in 
(Label, IP Source Address, IP Destination Address)
triplet does not add a whole lot of value.

Regards,

Bora


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 3:33 PM
> To: Bora Akyol
> Cc: Vishwas Manral; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Flow label and its uses
> 
> I'd encourage you to look at the big-internet archives (if they
> exist) from about 1993. The flow label was proposed to 
> support the nimrod architecture, and in essence *was* what we 
> later described as "MPLS", but in the IPv6 header. That's one 
> of the reasons that the flow label isn't covered by the IPSEC 
> checksum - so it could be managed appropriately at ingress 
> and egress to the various "flows" or "LSPs".
> 
> Yes, there has been a lot of water under that bridge. Between 
> requiring the flow label to pass unchanged and making the 
> address fixed length and of the same construction as the IPv4 
> address, Nimrod became very difficult to implement in IPv6, 
> and Noel still isn't very happy with the IPv6 community.
> 
> On Jan 17, 2006, at 3:11 PM, Bora Akyol wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Vishwas Manral [mailto:Vishwas@sinett.com]
> >
> >> And a more recent draft
> >> http://www.faqs.org/ftp/pub/internet-drafts/draft-chakravorty-
> >> bcc-flowla
> >> bel-00.txt
> >
> > This last one looks a lot like MPLS in IPv6 ;-)
> >
> > Bora
> 
>