> > 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 |
> > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Could we be a bit parcimonious and reserve a couple of header bits "for
further use"? We don't seem to have a level of consensus in the group
that people can guarantee that either a bunch of random bits, or a
diffserv flow label, are absolutely the best thing since sliced bread.
Not at the same level as the payload type or payload length, in any
case. It would be nice to be able to invent something like ECN in
2010...
Maybe we could make it something like 4 bits of "label type" and 16 bits
of label value, defining then the possibilities for "0-0", "0-random"
and "1-diffserv" -- whatever that means.
-- Christian Huitema
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
