Actually, I would take out the word "uniquely". I am not sure that we want to confine possible QoS solutions to "uniquely" labeling anything.
Margaret At 10:43 AM 12/27/01 , Brian E Carpenter wrote: >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] >-------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
