On Mon, 8 Oct 2018, vineet deshpande wrote:
I have 12 years of experience in this field. The reason I re-wrote the draft was to make clear the math behind the evolution of network from wireless technologies. The reason why 'the mathematical premise for the electromagnetic equivalent" is in the draft is the same as was in the previous draft. To explain the limitations brought about by this evolution. As ietf is actively involved in multipath TCP and ipv6 research any imitations in design considerations is relevant for all to know. I would appreciate if you could read the draft in its entirety and comment at least on why the virtual address space with UlLA ipv6 and multipath tcp for virtual bgp neighborship is not a practical solution. That would at least make the matter more concrete.Thanks and regards,Vineet Deshpande
I still don't understand why there is a need for this "reclassification".You can classify parts of your IP space to have whatever meaning you want, there is no reason to involve the IETF and IANA for that, and nobody external to you need to know anything about it.
If the packets are internal to you, you can use the flow label for whatever you want. If you want to use the flow label for something globally significant, you're going to have a really hard time convincing people that this is useful. Your draft does not do that.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
