Robert Elz wrote:
>
> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 14:05:30 -0400
> From: Thomas Narten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> [quoting Brian]
> | > It's a matter of interpretation (you could ask the same question
> | > about some ways of using the flow label for diffserv
> | > classification).
>
> Actually, my take would be that what the text is attempting to restrict
> is the forming of state - not using the flow label. So, using (a hash of)
> the flow label for choosing among alternate equivalent routes would be
> just fine - as no state is being left behind when that's done. The issue
> is creating some kind of state (memory if you like) when there's no defined
> way to delete it.
Well yes, although I've not been sure from the start of this discussion
why that is any business of *this* working group. Worrying about that
really belongs to whatever WG standardizes a specific use of the label.
All we need to do, imho, is establish the appropriate boundary
conditions, and that is what the current text aims to do.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
