Comments in line.
B. R.
Tina
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
On Jul 28, 2010, at 5:01 PM, Aleksi Suhonen wrote:
Hi,
On 07/28/10 13:24, Tina TSOU wrote:
I like the proposal from Pascal Thurbert in today's meeting.
I believe that It's more acceptable for the majority of the different
camps.
I hated it. :-(
I feel that changing the structure of the IPv6 header like that at
this stage is too late. And I feel the change is bigger than people
think it is.
Some earlier discussion has suggested that if the label is "0", then
it's mutable and otherwise it's immutable.
It's also fine, if people could agree on it. I'm fine with both
proposals, as long as both mutable and immutable are possible.
And if an operator does change it, they should reset it on egress,
and maybe hijack some other bit in the header (e.g. from DSCP?) to
signal that the flow label has been fiddled with. This bit should of
course also be reset at the same time as the label is reset.
--
Aleksi Suhonen
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
