So would you prefer the choice of redefining the flow label
as a "reserved, must be zero" field?
Brian
Pekka Savola wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> > Christian,
> >
> > In fact the diffserv requirement is for a 16 bit field, so we could
> > adopt:
> >
> > 0 1
> > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
> > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> > |1 0 0 0| Diffserv IPv6 Flow Label |
> > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >
> > or something similar, to conserve bits.
>
> I support this, but for different reasons. IPv6 base header has _way_ too
> few "reserved" bits (none), and this would get us 3. It's arrogant to
> believe we might not find use for them in the future.
>
> (you could always define extension headers to do the thing, but it might
> be good to reserve some space for enhancements-to-be in the primary header
> too).
>
> --
> Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
> Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall"
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
