Hi Erik, On 22.07.2011 08:35, Erik Kline wrote: >> I don't think that your proposed solution is necessary, since >> IPv6 has the Flow Label, that - if set by the source - may be >> very well suited for your purpose (tracking flows along a path). >> Please see http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-flow-3697bis/ >> for more details. > > I also think use of the flowlabel will prove operationally simpler.
Yes, fully agree since a) the Flow Label is part of the standard common IPv6 header, thus always present and easier to process (even in the fast path) as you also pointed out. b) Useful Flow Label support in end-systems (i.e., setting the Flow Label correctly) is more likely than support for this newly suggested additional option, once it would have been adopted. c) it is really unclear how you would enable the use of the proposed option in end-systems on demand. In case of debugging a network problem you need to enable this option later, if not too late. Regards, Roland -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
