Taking Scott's suggestion, here's another try:
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 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.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
- Re: Flow Label Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Flow Label Subrata Goswami
- Re: Flow Label Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Flow Label Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Flow Label Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Flow Label Perry E. Metzger
- Re: Flow Label Keith Moore
- Re: Flow Label Perry E. Metzger
- Re: Flow Label Keith Moore
- Proposed update to RFC 2460 [was Re: Flow Label] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Proposed update to RFC 2460 [was Re: Flow Label] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Proposed update to RFC 2460 [was Re: Flow Label] Margaret Wasserman
- Re: Proposed update to RFC 2460 [was Re: Flow Label] James Kempf
- Re: Proposed update to RFC 2460 [was Re: Flow Label] Alex Conta
- Re: Proposed update to RFC 2460 [was Re: Flow Label] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Proposed update to RFC 2460 [was Re: Flow Label] Jim Fleming
- Re: Proposed update to RFC 2460 [was Re: Flow Label] Alex Conta
- Re: Proposed update to RFC 2460 [was Re: Flow Label] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Proposed update to RFC 2460 [was Re: Flow Label] Jim Fleming
- Round and round Re: Flow Label Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Round and round Re: Flow Label Perry E. Metzger
