> With the current flow label semantics the routers can avoid doing
> intserv
> state lookup if the flow label is null. If the flow label is used for
> path
> distribution, the router will be searching for the intserv state for
> all the
> packets (assuming the router does intserv at all). So from this
> point-of-view it might be better to designate a separate label type
> for
> intserv?
That should be a question for the Intserv WG. Either they can live with
the default mechanism, or they expand the effort of specifying their own
solution. I have no personal preference on this subject.
> What I'm aiming at is to see if a classifying router (intserv,
> diffserv, or other) could be ignorant of the different flow label
> types when doing the lookup based on the 3-tuple of the source
> address, destination address and the 20 bit flow label.
That is indeed debatable. My proposal is to treat any non-understood
label as if it had been null; an alternate proposal could be to treat
any non-understood label as a basic label. Again, I don't have a strong
preference, we just need to pick one specification.
-- 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
