I don't think that is in the least stupid, but some people
seem to :-)
Brian
Keith Knightson wrote:
>
> 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
