Alex Conta wrote:
> I asked for clarifications. You didn't respond.
> I am sorry, in their absence, I would repeat again, what
> I said based on what I understood you saying, and you were quite vague
> in that sentence:
I thought I did respond. The use of the bits would only appear to
be vague if a middle-box without context were looking at them. If
you will recall the fundamental principle of the Internet is its
end-to-end nature, so the fact that some bits only have meaning
between the endpoints is not surprising.
> I strongly believe, and am not the only one, please see
> earlier messages
> in the thread, packet forwarding and QoS processing in line
> cards on routers at wire
> speed is too critical to afford the use of flow label in the network
> layer header, to pass duplicate information from source to
> destination,
> that has no network layer meaning, or use in the network.
And there are probably more of us who strongly believe that there
must be header bits that have immutable context from end-to-end.
The network elements are not the drivers here, the endpoints are.
If we allow the middle boxes to control our actions we end up with
the POTS network, and loose the ability to deploy new and
innovative applications.
Tony
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
