Hi Tina,
On 10-10-29 02:39 PM, Tina Tsou wrote:
Best Regards,
Tina TSOU
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Suresh Krishnan
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 9:01 AM
To: Rémi Després
Cc: 6man 6man; George, Wes E IV [NTK]; Guolinag Yang; Yiu Lee; Christian
Huitema; Brian Carpenter
Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-krishnan-6man-header-reserved-bits-00.txt
Hi Remi,
<snip>
>>> ....
>> My point was, if we need to change the nodes at both ends to
>> implement a
new use of the flow label, the backward compatibility argument is moot.
>
> Right "if we need to change the nodes at both ends", but we don't.
As I said before, for draft-zhou, we need to.
[Suresh, thank you for taking time reading draft-zhou. As the author, I
don’t see why we need to modify the Flow label at both ends in
draft-zhou. Why do you say that? What’s the technical reason? Thanks.]
I said *the nodes* at both ends need to be modified to support the flow
label scheme. The flow label does not necessarily need to get modified
at both ends.
Thanks
Suresh
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
