Nalini
Basically I agree with what others said.
If there were any reason for not using the flow label, I think you
should state it very clearly in the document.
Regards,
.as
On 22 Jul 2011, at 04:59, Roland Bless wrote:
> Hi Erik,
>
> On 22.07.2011 08:35, Erik Kline wrote:
>>> I don't think that your proposed solution is necessary, since
>>> IPv6 has the Flow Label, that - if set by the source - may be
>>> very well suited for your purpose (tracking flows along a path).
>>> Please see http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-flow-3697bis/
>>> for more details.
>>
>> I also think use of the flowlabel will prove operationally simpler.
>
> Yes, fully agree since
> a) the Flow Label is part of the standard common IPv6 header, thus
> always present and easier to process (even in the fast path) as
> you also pointed out.
> b) Useful Flow Label support in end-systems (i.e., setting the Flow
> Label correctly) is more likely than support for this newly
> suggested additional option, once it would have been adopted.
> c) it is really unclear how you would enable the use of the proposed
> option in end-systems on demand. In case of debugging a network
> problem you need to enable this option later, if not too late.
>
> Regards,
> Roland
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
