Francis.Dupont wrote: > PS: I can read between the lines that an end-to-end usage of > the flow label is proposed. IMHO this is only a waste of bits, > the flow label is in the header in order to be available to > intermediate nodes. For end-to-end options, a destination header > fits better.
There is value in a mechanism that the origin host can trust that a remote router will see its intent. If you are strictly talking about endpoint conversations, yes using an extension header is appropriate. The point is that an application needs to communicate with routers along the path and know that some random transit administration hasn't changed the message. Tony -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
