Earlier, Brian Carpenter wrote:
I'd have to trawl the archive to find all the arguments,
but the main issue was that any attempt to include semantics
in the bits of the flow label leads to complexity that
probably can't be handled at line speed in a scaleable way.
That claim presumes that a
Ran,
On 2011-06-22 01:03, RJ Atkinson wrote:
Earlier, Brian Carpenter wrote:
I'd have to trawl the archive to find all the arguments,
but the main issue was that any attempt to include semantics
in the bits of the flow label leads to complexity that
probably can't be handled at line speed in
Jari,
No problem with your editorial comments - they are small enough that
I suggest holding them until after the LC.
four bits from the flow label as reserved values
There was a pretty clear consensus against having any special bits, when
this sort of idea was discussed last year.
Thanks
Brian,
four bits from the flow label as reserved values
There was a pretty clear consensus against having any special bits, when
this sort of idea was discussed last year.
Ok. Was there a rationale, e.g., that it would be impossible to do so
for some reason, or that the bits could
I have reviewed this specification. It is well written and ready to move
forward; I have asked for an IETF Last Call.
I did have two very minor editorial comments, and one personal opinion:
In this case too, the word
alone is to be interpreted precisely - a router is allowed to
combine the
