On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 10:07:17AM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > That is only my trivial suggestion of redefinition semantics for 0xFFFFF. > After all, 0xFFFFF has been a valid value of flow label. Originally, I just > think only 20-bits is enough.
The TC does not change flow label semantics. The value range of the IPv6FlowLabel TC is 0..1048575 which equals 0..0xfffff. The value range of the IPv6FlowLabelOrAny is -1 | 0..1048575, that is this TC adds a special value which is outside of the range of the possible flow label values. The encodings of -1 and 1048575 are surely different in BER. > To say the least, Flow label TC need really a wildcard?? In a application, > a wildcard could be represented by FlowLabelValue>0 or FlowLabelValue<>0. > Thus, it may not redefine the semantics of "0-0xFFFFF". If you define a filter which matches packet headers, it is usually a good idea to have a wildcard value which says "do not match this header". The IPv6FlowLabelOrAny TC is exactly for this purpose. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen <http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
