> 1. I do think that the justification in the draft for such a major > change, after 12 years work based on RFC 2460, is weak.
how much do you want for hacking on an unused field, another glorious pile of second system syndrome, for which dozens of people have tried to find a use for over a decade? > So the chances that we actually see significant use of such reserved > bits seem to be very low. lower or higher than the use of flow label? not that i am impressed with this hack. but objecting on the basis that flow label is a sacred cow seems somewhat specious. randy -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
