On 2010-08-18 07:10, George, Wes E [NTK] wrote:
> but I think it'll end up coming back to your original assertion about hosts
> vs network, and if we have to try to compromise so that both can use it, you
> might end up needing some of that complexity.
That is completely obvious to me from this very complex thread, and
from the complexity of some of the proposals I have seen for encoding
meaning in the bits of the label (including an earlier version of
draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update).
The only way I can envisage even a 51% rough consensus is on something
very simple.
Also remember that we already have 6 mutable bits to define per-hop
behaviour, and they are in practice used only for very simple deployments
with about three or four different behaviours at most. I'd like to hear
from some core router development engineers about their plans for using
a lot more mutable bits...
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
