Bob Hinden wrote:
>
> Brian,
>
> At 08:45 AM 8/16/2001 -0500, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >I think the WG needs to decide once and for all whether the flow label is
> > a) a CATNIP or MPLS-like routing handle
> >or b) a QOS hint for intserv only
> >or c) a QOS hint for intserv and diffserv
> >or d) a waste of bits
>
> I would like to suggest another choice:
>
> e) a set of bits we hold in reserve for the future
A couple of people have said this in private mail too. I agree;
making it a "reserved MBZ" field is the practical alternative
to "a waste of bits".
>
> I don't think that we have enough experience to pick between a), b), or c)
> now, and think that something might come up in the future where 28 bits in
> the IPv6 header might be very useful. This might not have anything to do
> with QOS.
I think you mean 20 bits. The traffic class octet is fully standardised by
diffserv and ECN.
The problem with this is that the text we have today effectively selects
option b), since it endorses the pseudo-random value. If we do nothing,
we have effectively chosen the intserv-only usage. That's why I started
this thread.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
