Hi Hesham,
>=> Perhaps another way to look at this, is to >come back to basics and say that the flow label >is part of the IPv6 header, therefore it seems >rational to let IPv6 WG define its use. >I don't see anything wrong with this, no other >fields in the IPv6 header are defined by other >groups. This is acceptable to me, if it represents a consensus view of the WG. But, in this case, we should go all the way and actually specify a useful flow label -- one that could be used to look-up cached information on intermediate routers without a signalling protocol, for example. But, the current effort does not seem focused on defining an actual use for the flow label. We seem to be focused on defining restrictions on the flow label, without a specific use that justifies those restrictions. Margaret -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------