I couldn't attend last WG Meeting and from the Minutes
I didn't see an outcome of the flow label discussion.
Principally, I see similar options as Steve:
- complete standardization in either of the three
directions (mutable label, e-t-e-label or the combination
of both) that enables people to make use of it in the
original sense (as flow identification)
- rename the field to "unspecified" and enable people to
find new L3 enhancements beyond the scope of flow
identification.
- leave it as it is. That prevents people from using the
field or coming up with new ideas.
Is there a conclusion taken on that issue ?
cheers
jochen
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
