On 2010-08-05 21:37, Sheng Jiang wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter >> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 9:50 AM >> To: Bob Hinden >> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: flow label usage? >> >> On 2010-07-29 00:32, Bob Hinden wrote: >>> Lucy, >>> >>> On Jul 28, 2010, at 1:58 PM, Yong Lucy wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> What is flow label usage? >>>> >>>> IMO: it enforces that a set of packets with the same flow >> label has to be carried through the networks in the same path >> or belong to the same application at host. Is that correct? >> Is there other usage of flow label? >>> RFC 3697 defines it as: >>> >>> A flow is a sequence of packets sent from a particular >> source to a >>> particular unicast, anycast, or multicast destination >> that the source >>> desires to label as a flow. A flow could consist of all >> packets in a >>> specific transport connection or a media stream. >> However, a flow is >>> not necessarily 1:1 mapped to a transport connection. >>> >>> It is intended to label a flow. It does not specify a path. >> And that was *not* an oversight by the authors or the WG. On >> the contrary, RFC 3697 intentionally did not define any usage >> model for the flow label, or even a purpose. It was limited >> to defining the behaviour of source hosts. > > en... I can understand "intentionally did not define any usage model" during > RFC 3697 writing. > However, now, the question is what stop or block us to define any usage > model. The fact is, after 6 > years from RFC 3697, we don't have only usage defined. Why?
Excellent question! Actually that is why Qinwen Hu and I wrote draft-hu-flow-label-cases, but it didn't give us the answer. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
