One more question. Does immutable flow label also imply that flow remapping is not supported ? if so how is that going to be enforced - it seems to be impossible to do that. Even the source and destination IP addresses can be mutated (or changed), right ? NAT is an example in IPv4.
Subrata -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Richard Carlson Sent: Monday, December 24, 2001 7:12 AM To: Robert Elz; Michael Thomas Cc: Hesham Soliman (ERA); [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: draft-rajahalme-ipv6-flow-label-00.txt Robert; How would a receiving host, or the egress router, determine that the FL in the arriving packet needs to be reset back to the original value? Unless you can make this happen, the e2e aspect is lost and we're back to the same state, the receiver can't tell if the network changed the FL or not. So I agree with Tony, the FL needs to remain immutable and even 1 mutable value destroys its value. Rich At 06:43 PM 12/22/01 +0700, Robert Elz wrote: > Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 10:18:27 -0800 (PST) > From: Michael Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > | Um, no. I don't want my telephant's local policy -- > >Then leave them - they'll never learn as long as people just accept it. > > | Yes, yes, big deal. They wanted to support > | first hop rewrite, it got a negative reaction > | and from what I can tell they're not wedded to > | that piece. Do you actually disagree, or are > | you just being argumentative? > >I am trying to find out what the actual harm would be in reserving exactly >one value for the flow-id field with a meaning defined as "I don't care if >this is altered by the network for its purposes". No-one would have to >use that value if they cared about immutability - just use some different >one. So far, I see no evidence of harm at all - nothing more than >queasiness at the thought of the network altering anything in a packet, >even when the source host has said it is OK for it to be altered (I'm not >sure how you cope with the hop limit field, or source routing). > >Unless someone can show that some actual harm can be caused by by this, >then I'm finding it hard to understand why anyone would want to prohibit it. >It all seems to be a case of "I would never want to use this, therefore >you are not allowed to use it either". > >kre > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >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] >-------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ Richard A. Carlson e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Network Research Section phone: (630) 252-7289 Argonne National Laboratory fax: (630) 252-4021 9700 Cass Ave. S. Argonne, IL 60439 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
