below...
Pekka Savola wrote:
I've decidedly tried getting into the flow label debate, but will do so
for a few parts.
In general, I liked many of the Thomas's improvements; IMO, specification
of flow label itself (with or without RFC2119 keywords), and treatment
(like that nodes SHOULD
below...
Hancock, Robert wrote:
Dear all,
A couple of comments on the 'router treatment' and 60s timeout issues:
Note: what I would expect this draft to describe is:
1) what arbitrary source nodes should do with the flow label.
2) what routers should do with the flow label.
Hmm, so your point is that even if the receiving host ignores the
prefix, it can still send a packet (whose destination address is
covered by the prefix) to the router, which will then forward the
packet back to the link.
Yes.
There's still an interoperability issue if a non forwarding node
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Narten wrote:
I reviewed the revised document today. Speaking as an individual, here
is my reaction:
Abstract
This document specifies the IPv6 Flow Label field, the requirements
for IPv6 source nodes labeling flows,
