Hi John,
First off, forget what the Appendix of RFC 2460 says. It's not normative.
So, the current rules are in RFC 3697. They certainly don't
allow any kind of semantics in the bits of the flow label (in
the absence of a signalling mechanism):
> IPv6 nodes MUST NOT assume any mathematical or ot
On Feb 3, 2011, at 23:08, Fernando Gont wrote:
> On 04/02/2011 03:53 a.m., Bhatia, Manav (Manav) wrote:
>> One of the major reasons given for not accepting this was that no new
>> extension headers need to be *ever* defined in future because you
>> MUST either use hop-by-hop ext header or the desti
Roland Bless wrote:
> Am 04.02.2011 18:53, schrieb Vishwas Manral:
>
>> If we want to process connex or some particular option, we could
>> process it. However there may need to be some assumptions like, the
>> option is the first in the list of options or any such thing.
>
> Personally, I'm not
Hi Vishwas,
Am 04.02.2011 18:53, schrieb Vishwas Manral:
> The problem is not just about known options here, like I mentioned
> earlier. A structure where there is a list which needs to be walked
> serially and no fixed place for an information, it is bad for the fast
> path.
I see.
> I have men
Hi Chris,
Am 04.02.2011 16:27, schrieb Christopher Morrow:
> which options? how often would you expect this list to update? routers
> live in the network for ~7 years or so, in large networks. ASIC
> updates mean very expensive (equipment, personnel, sla) changes are
> required.
Which options dep
