>> his way uses flowlabel as hop-by-hop modifiable field. what kind of
>> proposals should be presented in flowlabel special session then?
>One possible answer: only proposals that use the flow label field to
>label flows. If we open it up to a discussion of all possible uses for
>a spare 20 bits in the header, we'll never reach any useful conclusions.
>Note, however, that we may possibly conclude that it's not very important
>to have an IPv6 header field that labels flows after all, in which case
>the field would then become reserved and subject to alternative proposals
>(though in my personal opinion, spare bits are just an invitation to
>unnecessary featuritis).
>If you don't like that answer, please let us know. We aim to serve.
I'm okay with the above answer, and I understand the timing constraints
(of course I would like to hear from masa about it).
but now I have other questions -
(1) what is "flow" here, and (2) if people agree with the definition
of "flow" in RFC2460 appendix A (first paragraph), why would people
want the field to be hop-by-hop modifyable?
the following does not seem like an "identification of flow" to me.
> (2) a mutable value that can be or will be modified hop-by-hop,
> like an ATM virtual circuit identifier or an MPLS label.
itojun
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
