Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 16:26:54 +0100
From: "Hesham Soliman (ERA)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| => Sorry but this is very unrealistic.
It wasn't meant to be realistic, just an example to show it can be done.
| Setting the flow label at the default router, pretty much rules
| out the multiple default router case for a realistic
| scenario.
Yes.
| I don't think that should be allowed.
Huh? What shouldn't be allowed? Not having multiple default
routers? That is, you're saying everyone must have more than one?
That would be rather ambitious.
| The node initiating the connection is the node with most information
| about it's flow and it should be the one setting it.
I agree completely, it should be. That isn't the question however.
| Let's not try to buit any more dependencies on the default routers.
I agree as well.
But, if I have only one default router, and I have a lot of applications
that know nothing about setting flow labels (which pretty much describes all
the IPv6 code that exists at the minute that Im aware of), are you telling
me that I am to be prohibited from having the router do classification and
set the flow label to some intelligent choice ?
Note: no-one is proposing (that I am aware of) mandating that it work
this way - the issue is more of whether we should be prohibiting it.
Personally, I like to prohibit as little as possible, unless there's
a very good reason - and that someone (or some group) can't figure out
how they'd sanely use it, isn't good enough.
kre
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
