Hmm... it seems to me that both the formats we are suggesting (pseudo-random
and diffserv PHB ID) are immutable.
Brian
Alex Conta wrote:
>
> Jim,
>
> Please reexamine.
>
> As a hint, note that MPLS, which is using *mutable* labels, is using
> RSVP-TE (extension of RSVP
> for Traffic Engineering) as one of the label distribution mechanisms.
>
> Alex
>
> Jim Bound wrote:
> >
> > Yes I would as a note. I want what we orginally called for and to make
> > sure nothing breaks RSVPv6 which uses the flowlabel too.
> >
> > /jim
> >
> > On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Tim Chown wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Francis Dupont wrote:
> > >
> > > > In your previous mail you 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 vote for b)
> > >
> > > So would you vote to mandate that the field is non-mutable in transit too?
> > >
> > > tim
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
