I didn't imply, or mean to imply, that the flow label is well defined.
That doesn't prevent it being orthogonal.
Brian
Alex Conta wrote:
>
> Brian,
>
> Please re-examine. My point was that both Diffserv, and MPLS, deal with
> QoS topics, as the IPv6 flow label does. Therefore, orthogonality, if I
> understand you correctly, as independence from each other, and the rest,
> has little relevance to my point.
>
> In contradiction to earlier calls, and statements on this list, your
> message seem to suggest that the flow label is well defined, and its
> role well determined... If that is the case, I should say I am sorry:
> this is rather a waste of everybody's time....
>
> Alex
>
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >
> > Alex,
> >
> > Alex Conta wrote:
> > >
> > > Since the IPv6 flow label work started, two major efforts in IETF made
> > > significant progress on related topics: Diffserv and MPLS.
> >
> > Steve's already said this but I want to say it again: no!
> >
> > The Flow Label is totally orthogonal to diffserv, which has no need
> > of it, since it has its own mutable 6-bit field (more than enough).
> >
> > The Flow Label is totally orthogonal to the MPLS Shim, which is at a lower
> > layer and is edge-to-edge, not end-to-end.
> >
> > As has been observed, the Flow Label is accommodated neatly by the IntServ
> > model.
> >
> > Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
