> Subject: Re: draft-conta-ipv6-flow-label-02.txt
> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 18:33:54 +0900
> From: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > with many of the diffserv-oriented encoding, there are possibilities
> > for routers to get tricked by originating nodes, leading to theft of
> > traffic and/or simple kernel panic (if we put header length into flow
> > label field, and if your router is careless - if you are careful you
> > are not speeding things up and there's no meaning in embedding
> > header length into flow label field).
>
> also, if you are going to rewrite the field for the sake of diffserv,
> why don't you use traffic class field (6bit)?
I didn't see this until today because some daemon threw me off the mailing list...
The traffic class field is not enough. If you have to re-classify traffic at
an administrative boundary, then by definition at that point the traffic class
field is inadequate; you need more information. The advantage that IPv6 has
is that even when the header is partly hidden by IPSEC, the flow label is
available to carry additional semantics. The actual proposal is to use the
PHB identifier which has end to end semantics.
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
