> AH: It could be possible to change AH, but it might not be > worth it. The > main problem would be the interoperability problem between > a source sending > non-zero flow label and including it in the AH computation, > and an old > destination receiving it and replacing 0's for the Flow > Label for AH check > (which would fail). But is this important? Could we just > ignore AH? (Who is > using it anyway?) >
=> I don't think we need to change AH. Even if we change AH, does that mean we would have to use it in every packet just because we want to use the flow label ? I don't think that's a good idea. I think there are some cases where we would want the receiver to reflect the flow label value, and for this case we might want to make sure that the value is correct. I had a preliminary idea and was going to write something about it. Basically the sender can generate the flow label based on a hash of the source and destination port numbers. This is straight forward enough. If we want to make it more sophisticated then we can add another number to the hash input (e.g P1 || P2 || x). Where x can be something specific to this flow. But I think P1 and P2 are enough. Comments ? Hesham -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
