In your previous mail you 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
=> I believe we have to define more accurately what are e2e flow labels: (1) information for the peer node (2) information for intermediate routers that doesn't change en route. (intserv, diffserv, or any future QOS solution). => so your interpretation is (2) An extension header is useless. It's too clumsy and too far down the packet for line-speed hardware matching. => but for (1) you should agree a destination option is better. Regards [EMAIL PROTECTED] PS: I agree with (2) if end-to-end stands for domains (with as constrainted as you'd like definition of a domain). -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
