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's nothing between the lines: the argument is *very explicit* that we want e2e flow labels if they are to be of any use for QOS (intserv, diffserv, or any future QOS solution). An extension header is useless. It's too clumsy and too far down the packet for line-speed hardware matching. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
