[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > The current draft states that a non-zero label could be changed by an > intermediate node to a non-zero value. However, during the discussion on the > topic in SLC it was concluded (IMO) that this is undesirable, and it would > be more useful (and sound) to keep the value always immutable (end-to-end). > > Then about the text about allowing changes if the value is preserved > end-to-end. I agree it is kind of weird, but the intention was to say that > if you really, really want to do label switching of any sort, you'll need to > pay the price of being able to restore the original value before going out > of a network doing such things.
When I think about it, it makes no sense. The only way to restore the original value is if you carry it with the packet (nothing else is safe). That means adding a shim header. If you're going to add a shim header, you might as well use it for the label switching anyway, so there is simply no point in ever using the IPv6 label for label switching. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
