> Are you saying that the "intended semantics and usage of the Flow
> Label field" documented in the Appendix A of RFC 2460 are optional?
Optional at best, so yes.
Note that when 2460 was advanced to Draft Standard, there was IESG
pushback on including the Appendix A definition of the Flow Label as
part of the standard (that is why it got moved to an appendix, with
Section 6 using the wording "still experimental and subject to
change"). The definition is largely unproven (in the sense that folks
agree this is the best way to provide the function) and unused at this
point, hardly what one would expect as part of a Draft Standard.
That is not to say that it is the wrong way to do the Flow Label. But
there is no consensus that it is the right way either.
In my view, deciding on the right useage of the bits requires first
understanding the problem that needs to be solved.
Thomas
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
