On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> So would you prefer the choice of redefining the flow label
> as a "reserved, must be zero" field?
Yes, at least partially.
> 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
>
--
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
