Thomas,
See my comments inline:
We don't know, and 60 seconds is a compromise value anyway.
But there
seemed to be WG consensus that a default timeout is
needed, since
otherwise we are licensing implementors to create hard
state. The authors
have been round and round
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Would everyone be happy with 2 minutes?
I would.
Brian
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:
So how about this:
The 20-bit Flow Label field in the IPv6 header [IPv6] is used by a
source to label packets of a flow. Packet classifiers use the triplet
of Flow Label, Source Address, and Destination Address fields to
identify which flow a particular packet belongs to. Packets are
: Saturday, January 11, 2003 11:41 PM
To: Thomas Narten
Cc: Brian E Carpenter; Rajahalme Jarno (NRC/Helsinki);
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-flow-label-04.txt
Thomas Narten wrote:
We may be more in agreement than appears. I agree that
usage scenarios
Thomas Narten wrote:
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Narten wrote:
I reviewed the revised document today. Speaking as an
individual, here
is my reaction:
Thomas, I'm happy to see a thorough review of the spec. Thanks.
Abstract
This
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.
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,
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 label flows) should be more
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.
The document appears to do 1), but 2)
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, and the requirements for flow
state establishment methods.
Note: what I would
With the -04 version we have addressed the concerns raised on the -03 in the Atlanta
meeting. The document structure has been simplified, and the text has been revised
with the minimal but sufficient target in mind. Hopefully all repetition, as well as
most MAYs and most SHOULDs are gone, as
12 matches
Mail list logo
