Guys,
Why is it not possible to use the field for different purposes if
the purpose can be suitably identified by some included mechanism
Christian has suggested. Some values being for "standardized" usages
and a few reserved?
That way everyone could get what they want.
Or is this a stupid suggestion?
Keith Knightson
At 3:43 PM -0700 8/27/01, Christian Huitema wrote:
>
>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]
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
