Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> So, kjc wanted to at least identify each of the flow, at least for
> statistics purposes, as well as traffic classification/policying
> if possible. Even if end nodes use ESP, he would liked to identify a
> flow from other flows. So, he wanted us to attach unique pseudorandom
> flow label per flow. This leads us to (b), and that's one of the
> reason why draft-itojun-ipv6-flowlabel-api-02.txt is based on (b).
minor correction:
My point was that leaving the flowlabel field unused doesn't do any
good for QoS/IPv6 deployment.
So, I proposed to itojun to set flowlabel by default because I think
the availability of flowlabel values will promote practical use of
this field.
The original definition may not be perfect but at least there are
useful applications. It isn't only for intserv; e.g., it can be used
for best-effort traffic to provide better fairness by WFQ-style
schedulers.
I think what the QoS community should have learned from the last
several years is that sometimes getting practical and moving forward
at the right time is more important than arguing :)
-Kenjiro
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
