1. draft-metzler-ipv6-flowlabel-00 - the mechanisms proposed in this draft are not something that we should be supporting - it proposes polluting a network layer header with application layer info. If an application needs to multiplex streams onto a single socket in the way proposed it could equally well format the PDU in an appropriate way without layer pollution. you missed the thing that it is not the intention of that draft to pollute the network layer with application layer information. you are right in a way that an application can / should handle multiplexing of streams internally. but imagine that applications that request a special handling by the network for every single stream, especially wanting all packets belonging to one single stream to take the same way through the network. in that case the application must signal the network which packets belong to which flow. the flow label would be the right place for doing this, there would be no mixture of network layers. as shown by some other protocols (e.g. HC) it is legitimate to use lower layer information on upper layer protocols. if it is e-t-e or mutable a fully standardized flow label would help in both cases application and network design. best regards jochen -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
