Brian,
I would vote for (e) as well. I would rather wait until someone
can demonstrate that an application/use will benefit greatly from the
use of the flow label bits.
Brian
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
>
> 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.
>
> Bob
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
