Metzler,
> Within RFC2460 the usage of the flow label field is not
> fully described and for me it is not clear if anything
> mentioned in the Appendix is part of the standard or
> only for information. Therefore I have the following
> questions:
The bottom line is that as of this time, no one has proposed how they
would like to use the Flow Label and led the WG to consensus on their
approach. Hence, it really is unspecified in the sense that its
useage/definition remains to be defined.
If you have a proposal on how it could/should be used, this WG is
certainly the place to make that proposal, and I would encourage you
to do so.
I'll note that there have been discussions in the past where arguments
have been made that the flow label should not be modified by any
routers (i.e., it has end-to-end semantics that need to respected)
while other folks have argued that it might be good to allow it to be
modified by routers (e.g., in support of something like MPLS). The
door has been left open for either of those approaches. Specifically,
the Flow Label is considered a mutable field from the perspective of
IPsec, thus IPsec won't break if the field is modified by routers.
Again, what is needed is a concrete proposal that answers the types of
questions you raised.
Thomas
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
