Steve,
I would like to present the case for the hybrid. the limitations that should
be imposed when one is not using the immutable form. and a conceptual model
how it can be used for RIB and FIB processes in software to support fast
path in hardware. I would assume any of us would only have 10 minutes on
the stage?
cc the list if folks want to connect with me on this.
thanks
/jim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Steve Deering [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday,March 14,2001 2:25 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Bob Hinden
> Subject: Flow Label discussion
>
>
> As Bob mentioned, we have set aside a chunk of time in the Minneapolis
> agenda to discuss the various proposals for what to do with the IPv6
> Flow Label field. This was a hot topic here on the list just before
> the San Diego IETF, and then we ended up with an agenda that was too
> full to allow in-depth face-to-face discussion, so we said we would
> defer it to the proposed interim meeting, which never happened.
> Therefore, we have made time next week for this topic.
>
> At the moment, we have one scheduled presentation on Flow
> Label issues,
> by Winston Seah (draft-shen-ipv6-flow-trans-00.txt), and we would like
> to offer the opportunity for others who were arguing for alternative
> semantics for the Flow Label field to summarize their proposals. If
> I recall correctly, the debate came to down to basically three
> different choices for Flow Label semantics:
>
> (1) a non-mutable value that, when concatenated with the source
> address, can be used by routers to identify flows. (This was
> the original design, described in pre-RFC2460 versions of
> the IPv6 spec.)
>
> (2) a mutable value that can be or will be modified hop-by-hop,
> like an ATM virtual circuit identifier or an MPLS label.
>
> (3) a hybrid of (1) and (2) in which, say, one bit of the Flow
> Label field indicates whether or not the rest of the field
> is mutable.
>
> It would be best if we had one presenter for each of those choices
> (assuming my list of the different choices is right), with 10 minutes
> provided for each speaker to make their case. I.e., if, for example,
> five people all volunteer to make the case for choice (2), we will
> ask them to choose one presenter among themselves to summarize all
> the arguments. The goal is to quickly lay out all the issues, and
> then allow some time for interactive discussion and trying to see if
> any sort of consensus might emerge. (Of course, any results will be
> written up in the minutes and subject to further
> discussion/ratification
> here on the list and in Last Calls, etc.)
>
> So, if anyone would like to make a summary presentation of a
> Flow Label
> proposal, please send a message to Bob and me (you may also cc it to
> the list if you wish, or not), saying in a sentence or two what your
> specific proposal is. If there are multiple people proposing the same
> thing, we'll ask that set of people to coordinate on a single
> presentation.
>
> OK?
>
> Steve
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
