Hi Shane, My concern is that RFC 3697 isn't quite clear enough about the recommended value of the flow label. If the WG is willing to adopt one of the two directions outlined in your slides, we'd have enough clarity about the requirement to include it.
Until we do that, of course, we are simply wasting 20 bits per packet. Regards Brian Carpenter On 2010-07-28 03:50, Shane Amante wrote: > Hi, > > Is there a reason why this node requirements doc doesn't mention that node's > SHOULD (ideally, MUST) implement IPv6 flow-labels? Perhaps this might break > the logjam and get host's to implement flow-labels, (or, one can hope). > > Thanks, > > -shane > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
