Hi Margaret, [ Sorry catching up on old emails]
> >come back to basics and say that the flow label > >is part of the IPv6 header, therefore it seems > >rational to let IPv6 WG define its use. > >I don't see anything wrong with this, no other > >fields in the IPv6 header are defined by other > >groups. > > This is acceptable to me, if it represents a consensus view > of the WG. But, in this case, we should go all the way > and actually specify a useful flow label -- one that > could be used to look-up cached information on intermediate > routers without a signalling protocol, for example. => OK, so what you're saying is that it's ok to have an immutable flow label but we should not have to mandate signalling to install the value in routers. That's also fine with me. What that means to me is that we can have some of the FL values reserved for assignment by IANA, provided we maintain immutability. Ie. using IANA as a signalling protocol :) I'm ok with that, but I know some (a lot ?) of people don't agree with it. Hesham -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
