Pekka Savola wrote:
> > "unintentionally" is exactly what it means, so there is no problem
> > doing this edit. This is related the API-issue above, as the
> > interface is required for the applications to be able to specify
> > which packets belong to which flow. No raw socket is needed for the
> > fiddling, as the interface enabling this is a MUST requirement
> > already!
>
> I'm not sure if I agree with your last sentence. If an application
> requests a specific flow label which is already used by another
> application at the moment, should the node allow that or
> return an error?
>
> I'd argue for an error, with a possible exception of an app run with
> "root" privileges.
>
What if the "application" is composed of multiple processes? For example audio and
data being sourced from two different processes, on two different transport
connections, but sharing the same flow (e.g. shared resource reservation). Maybe the
process first using a specific Flow Label should be able to specify which other
processes could "share" the same labeling for their packets?
However, this consideration is clearly out of scope for the flow label spec.
Jarno
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
