>...so why are we still talking >about it?
Because I still haven't seen a compelling argument for why we need additional rules regarding the flow label, beyond those that are already included in RFC 2460. You have given one single example (the congestion discard case), where an ambiguous flow label might have some limited usefulness. [Have you analyzed how this compares to other congestion management techniques, BTW?] However, in order to get this limited usefulness, we would need to place constraints on all possible IPv6 flow management systems that would use the flow label (specifically, that it would be e2e, and that the same value would infrequently be used between the same src/dst pair, such as in the random case.). You have not demonstrated (or even tried to argue) why this one congestion control technique would warrant placing these restrictions on all IPv6 flow management mechanisms. Margaret -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
