Bob,
Responding to your final comment, which I guess you made while out of
the chair for a second...
Bob Hinden wrote:
>
...
> p.s. For what it is worth, my current thinking is that I would prefer not
> use the flow label field for any specific QOS approach(s). I am open to
> something that makes it easier to identify flows. This could be used for
> QOS or other flow related applications.
The flaw in this is that one of the IETF's two QOS models is *not* flow
oriented - that is the entire reason why diffserv would need a flow label
with defined semantics.
We could decide not to give diffserv such a flow label, of course. But that
is a binary decision that IMHO needs to be taken soon.
So let me try to reduce this to a yes/no question for this WG:
Should we give half the flow label space to diffserv as an e2e field,
as at the beginning of section 7.1 of draft-conta-ipv6-flow-label-02.txt,
specifically so that IPv6 can support diffserv for ESP packets?
(This specifically does not address the encoding of the diffserv flow label,
which on balance is probably a matter for diffserv.)
> 0 1
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> |0| Pseudo-Random Value |
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>
> 0 1
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> |1| Diffserv IPv6 Flow Label |
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
