Are there any IPv6 router implementations that currently
modify the flow label field in transit?
If not, I could live with the minimal change that Scott
has proposed below (in the nature of a "bug fix" to
RFC 2460).
Scott Bradner wrote:
> The 20-bit Flow Label field in the IPv6 header MAY be set by a
> source to uniquely label sets of packets. 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.
I also agree that Appendix A should be removed (it is just wrong),
but we should NOT attempt to replace it with something that
is more right, given today's QoS mechanisms.
RFC 2460 shouldn't say anything else on this subject. All other
information should be handled in separate specifications (and
WGs) including:
- How flow label values are chosen
- The meaning of flow label values
- How flow labels are/aren't interpreted by
intermediate routers and/or end-nodes
- How flow labels can/can't be used to
identify a single flow
Does that work for everyone?
Again, does anyone know of any current implementations that this
would break?
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
