Hi Alex,
> The argument boils down to **forcing "read-only" onto flow labels does
> not pay**. On the contrary.
> I think that the MPLS work is a significant progress on the
> concept, and
> mechanisms of labeling flows, and as you know [(-:], I think IPv6
> should borrow from it, rather than going against, or going on a path
> that was started before the MPLS effort, but so far didn't go
> far enough
> to be sufficiently significant.
>
I agree with you Alex.
And I also think that IPv6 should "borrow the mechanisms". An I would like
to see a combine model for use of the flow-label where the "intserv"/per
flow model would exist in the access and that a aggregated/"differv"/"mpls"
like model with possibility to re-write the flow label would exist...
-- 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
