Robert Elz writes:
> | Alternatively another part of the stack may also choose to set it.
>
> Yes. But don't you see how similar this is to having a router set it?
> In either case, it won't (shouldn't) be altered if it has been explicitly
> set by the application, but assuming the existence of a "not set to anything"
> or if you like "I don't care" value (which is the 0 value currently),
> if there some particular reason it makes a big difference whether something
> down the stack change it, or whether a router does? In either case, when
> the packet arrives at the destination application, it has been changed.
I sure see a difference. If my stack does that for me
I always have the option to cd /usr/src/linux/net/ipv6
and make it stop doing that; YMMV. In a router, I stop
having that option.
> | => So I guess you're arguing for allowing the
> | case where routers can modify the flow label
> | from zero to X. But should we then force them
> | to set it back to Zero again ?
>
> Yes, that's it - though "arguing for" is perhaps too strong,
> "arguing against prohibiting" would be better.
>
> And I can't imagine why.
I can. It's the slippery slope to MIDCOM.
If we *really* want to preserve options here,
let's incoprorate Christian's suggestion that
we save a couple of bits out of the field which
define the sematics of the flow lable. The
beauty of Alex and Jarno's proposal is it's
simplicity. Mucking with that isn't likely
to provide anything new, IMO.
Mike
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
