Brian,
On 6/25/11 9:06 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Hi,
The discussion Jari's issue has died down, so I'd like to propose some
revised text:
A node that forwards a flow whose flow label value in arriving
packets is zero MAY change the flow label value. In that case, it is
Brian,
On Jun 25, 2011, at 7:06 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Hi,
The discussion Jari's issue has died down, so I'd like to propose some
revised text:
A node that forwards a flow whose flow label value in arriving
packets is zero MAY change the flow label value. In that case, it is
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the IETF.
Title : An uniform format for IPv6 extension headers
Author(s) : Suresh Krishnan
On 27 Jun 2011, at 15:49 , Thomas Narten wrote:
RJ Atkinson rja.li...@gmail.com writes:
In the approach I outlined, for some given flow where the
originating node did not set a Flow Label value, the
non-fragmented packets all will have some Flow Label value A,
while fragmented packets
RJ Atkinson rja.li...@gmail.com writes:
For the case where the Flow Label is zero, I fully expect that routers
will use the currently deployed behaviour. So having 2 different
Flow Label values in the case I describe at top yields **identical**
behaviour as today -- therefore not obviously
Bob,
In addition, I'm not sure I understand how a router knows that it is a first
hop router. Are there cases where a device might mistakenly believe it is a
first hop router at a point where the traffic has already been load-balanced to
multiple routers? Are there situations where the
