In my opinion, the IPv4 TOS should also be "e-2-e"...
...clients should set it....routers should leave it alone....
Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Bound <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Alex Conta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Steve Deering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Michael Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Francis Dupont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Hesham Soliman (EPA) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Metzler Jochen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Ipng (E-Mail)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: Usage of IPv6 flow label
> the flow label should be guranteed e-2-e. clients should set it.
> routers should leave it alone.
>
> /jim
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
