>I still don't understand why there is a need for this "reclassification"
Because it is not just a reclassification, it is a unique mapping
On Tuesday, 9 October 2018, 11:28:50 am GMT+5:30, vineet deshpande
<[email protected]> wrote:
>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.
I have not involved IETF and IANA into anything. Not sure what you mean by
that. how I can involve IETF or IANA into anything unless it is through IETF
and IANA ?IETF and IANA are involved in IPv6, Multipath TCP and address
assignment.
>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.
As per RFC6437 the expectation for flow label seems to be to have global
significance
o This specification retains the rule that the flow label must not
be changed en route but allows routers to set the label on behalf
of hosts that do not do so.
On Tuesday, 9 October 2018, 10:37:31 am GMT+5:30, Mikael Abrahamsson
<[email protected]> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
