Unfortunately I think the extension header mechanism is probably
too heavy as Francis says, but I want to think a bit longer about
that (and re-read kre's last message and some of Jarno's messages).
Brian
Francis Dupont wrote:
>
> Tony, I am afraid that you are right. Diffserv seems to need
> reclassification at some points in the backbone and 20 bits are
> not enough to do the job... not speaking of the IPsec issue.
> According to an old thread the extension header mechanism of IPv6
> makes (re)classification at very high speed difficult, if we agree
> flow labels with semantic don't provide a solution, what to do?
>
> Regards
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> PS: some random ideas:
> - classify the first packet of a flow, use the flow label for
> next packets in the same flow: does this scale to a large
> number of flows? Latency of the first packet?
> - introduce a new destination option with needed infos? Can help
> for packets with a deep chain of extensions but not efficient
> for the standard case? (note I'd like to get a good solution
> for non-standard cases or extensions will suffer from the same
> problem than IPv4 options)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
