If I recall correctly, the DEC bit didn't need allocation, so I do not
follow the analogy you're making to the "flow label" allocation.
Alex
P.S. the DEC bit was used by early DECNET versions, but I am not sure if
it was not dropped
in DECnet Phase 5, when OSI network protocols replaced the proprietary
DECnet ones. A similar, but somewhat extended mechanism exists in Frame
Relay networks: BECN & FECN.
Jim Bound wrote:
>
> >>In the future I can see two cases:
> >> - the flow label is set by the source (first camp)
> >> - the flow label is set by an edge router (with the DiffServ definition
> >> of what is an edge router) because the source box (or its user) is
> >> too dumb to deal with QoS/..., according to the edge router manager.
>
> >If the Flow Label is set by something other than the source node, how
> >do you guarantee its uniqueness, over the topological scope in which
> >it must be unique? Do you need to invent a protocol between the routers
> >on a LAN to divvy up the Flow label space? What happens when the LAN
> >partitions, then routers in the different partitions assign duplicate
> >Flow Labels, and then the partition heals?
>
> Obviously I agree with Steve and this is a killer point. Recall in dec
> when we pushed the CE bit and it would only work exactly as Steve states
> won't work above. It never got used or deployed. It needs to come from
> the source and honored by the routers.
>
> /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]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
