-----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