At 8:32 PM +0900 3/15/01, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> his way uses flowlabel as hop-by-hop modifiable field. what kind of
> proposals should be presented in flowlabel special session then?
One possible answer: only proposals that use the flow label field to
label flows. If we open it up to a discussion of all possible uses for
a spare 20 bits in the header, we'll never reach any useful conclusions.
Note, however, that we may possibly conclude that it's not very important
to have an IPv6 header field that labels flows after all, in which case
the field would then become reserved and subject to alternative proposals
(though in my personal opinion, spare bits are just an invitation to
unnecessary featuritis).
If you don't like that answer, please let us know. We aim to serve.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
