Hesham Soliman wrote: > => Perhaps another way to look at this, is to > come back to basics and say that the flow label > is part of the IPv6 header, therefore it seems > rational to let IPv6 WG define its use. > I don't see anything wrong with this, no other > fields in the IPv6 header are defined by other > groups.
This makes the point better than I did, with the exception that I was only trying to define a boundary condition and let a group focused on signalling specify content. It is perfectly for the IPv6 WG to say that the DSCP is a mutable field and the FL is immutable. Both may be applicable to QoS applications in specific contexts. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
