"Perry E. Metzger" wrote:
>
> Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Windows XP and such
> > > aren't going to be obeying any of this, so the routers have to look at
> > > the contents of the packets anyway.
> >
> > Shall we forever constrain IPv6 to support only what is now supported by
> > Microsoft?
>
> No, but the further along the deployment curve you get, the more
> seriously you have to examine changes. We're far enough along that
> changes have to be made with the utmost of conservatism, and have to
> be made under the premise that backward compatibility can no longer be
> sacrificed.
Couldn't agree more. That is why I support Tony's proposal, which seems to
me to be very conservative, minimalist, and the only viable alternative
to MBZ. Expanding on that, I'd like to propose the following as the
complete and total replacement of Section 6 of RFC 2460.
The 20-bit Flow Label field in the IPv6 header MAY be used by a
source to uniquely label sets of packets requiring special handling by
IPv6 routers. Nodes that do not support the Flow Label field MUST set
the field to zero when originating a packet, and MUST ignore the field
when receiving a packet. All routers MUST pass the field on unchanged
when forwarding a packet.
This specification does not further define the meaning of the
Flow Label.
[and delete Appendix A, which is unhelpful.]
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
