Le 18 févr. 2010 à 04:34, Brian E Carpenter a écrit : > Hi, > > This may seem a bit unexpected, but after working on draft-carpenter-flow-ecmp > (just updated) and working with my student Qinwen Hu on some aspects > of the flow label, it seemed like time for another look at the flow > label standard, and Sheng Jiang was having similar thoughts. > > We'd like to discuss this in Anaheim if possible. > > Brian > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-00.txt > Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:15:02 -0800 (PST) > From: internet-dra...@ietf.org > Reply-To: internet-dra...@ietf.org > To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > > Title : Update to the IPv6 flow label specification > Author(s) : B. Carpenter, S. Jiang > Filename : draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-00.txt > Pages : 9 > Date : 2010-02-17 > > Various uses proposed for the IPv6 flow label are incompatible with > its existing specification. This document describes changes to the > specification that permit additional use cases as well as allowing > continued use of the previous specification.
+1 for this proposal. In fact I made a very similar proposal in May 2008(ref www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave/current/msg03773.html). Now, if some new specific behavior is retained for flow-label values that don't have to be preserved e2e, like that proposed by Mark Smith , I would suggest that, to leave freedom for the future, this would again be limited to a subset of flow label values (e.g. first two bits = 11). Regards, RD -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
