On Aug 10, 2010, at 2:53 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Thanks for all the enlightment about ROLL. > > My personal conclusion is that the ROLL considerations > are too complex and too subtle to be compatible with using > a general-purpose IPv6 header field (i.e. the flow label) > for ROLL purposes. They seem to be an extreme case of the > challenges of defining a local-use regime for the flow label, > which have already been a stumbling block for the various > versions of draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update. > > So IMHO, ROLL/RPL was quite wise to drop the IPv6 header flow label > proposal. >
Brian, I agree that the technical challenges seems significant. It was clear that, as we were writing RPL, we didn't yet know how to do it, and so we dropped the idea from the base draft. That being said, the possible benefits are pretty enormous to RPL networks. I'm therefore of the opinion that we're doing the right thing, trying to think this through and reach consensus on if there's a way to do use the flow label cleanly and effectively. The answer may be no, but the answer may also be yes: only discussion and good engineering design will let us figure it out. Phil -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
