Hi Brian, > To summarise: a source that chooses to use coarser flow labels deprives > itself of downstream load balancing, but gains in downstream service > differentiation. The draft is intended to allow that tradeoff rather > than force one choice or the other.
I fully agree with you on this. I think that the current flow label draft sets some basic guidelines on flow label uses, which is a good thing. Further specifications can state how the flow label can be used. There is definate interest in this work in NSIS. One simple goal of NSIS may be a refinement of RSVP, possibly RSVP ver 2 (whatever that might entail) which provide transparancy across intserv/diff serv/no serv networks. If there would be NSIS-aware routers, they could use the flow label for service differtiation. However, until we get better guidelines on the flow label, it will be hard to get folks to do anything with it. br, John -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
