We cannot define it now for MUST be zero. RSVPv6 uses its.
But because it is random I don't agree means that specific bits can't be
identified later if we need to.
When the flow is encoded at such a point in time specific values will
cause an error to the init app creating it (as I am a supporter of "b").
/jim
On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> > I would like to suggest another choice:
> >
> > e) a set of bits we hold in reserve for the future
> >
> > 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.
>
> Currently the field is defined as "must be random"; if we want to
> preserve the ability to recycle it for something else in the future,
> we need to redefine it *NOW* as a "must be zero".
>
> - Bill
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
