Of course the deployment of a certain type of flow setup and flow processing mechanism can be done only with devices that are supporting it. The fact that a device supports a certain mechanism or not does not make that mechanism "broken" (If for any reason, you cannot use OSPF on a router, does not make OSPF broken).
If mutability has a lesser application in some cases, prohibiting its use in all cases, for instance at a local scale, or intra-domain scale, is an unnecessary overkill. Accepting mutability, when specifically indicated by the flow setup and flow processing mechanism, does not exclude signalling-free solutions - the default "behavior" can be "immutable". Alex Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > Glenn Morrow wrote: > > > If "function A" wants the field immutable so be it. The signaling for "function A" >needs to convey the mutability rules to affected parties > > either implicitly or by optionality. > > This is broken. You can't signal to routers that aren't aware of > the "function A", because they won't be aware of the relevant > signalling either. Also, we need to be able to construct signalling-free > solutions (such as diffserv) for scalability. > > Immutability is the only viable answer. > > 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] > --------------------------------------------------------------------
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
