Subject: Re: IPv6 Flow label

From: Peter Sevenich <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 18:07:04 +0200 (MET DST)

Hi,
we have two years of experience in using the IPv6-flowlabel to transmit 
timecritical data (for example vocoded voice) and conventional data at the same 
time over heterogenouse networks including those of low bandwhith ( in the 
moment ISDN, GSM, HF, seriel modem, gateway to usual phone etc..). 
We use the flowlabel to transmit flow_id and QoS-parameters for channel resorce 
management in any packet. In the moment we have implementationes on Linux
Solaris and BSD and start inernational tests.
We are interesting in any work around the flowlabel. With RFC 2553 we are 
unlucky, because it is said that the system sets the (random) value of 
flowlabel. For us it is important that the aplication can set and read this 
value. I think a good solution for the flowlabel should include this 
possibility. 

We are interesting in any colaboration and discussion to write a draft.

Best Regards  
Peter

Thomas Eklund wrote
>
>We have an idea of what to use it for.
>I'm currently writing a draft about "traffic engineering in ipv6" like I said 
to you Bob.
>A draft proposal is finished quite soon and the intention is to see if there is 
some interest to use the flowlabel for traffic engineering and If you would like 
to co-author it thats perfect...
>
>Anyway I have asked for a slot on the IPng meeting for a couple of weeks ago 
and I hope that we can have a good discussion about this at the next IETf 
meeting
>
><Thinking about the discussion on what to do with the IPv6 flow label field, 
><I have couple of thoughts.
><
><The discussion about the best working group for this work is somewhat 
><academic until there is a concrete proposal (i.e, an internet draft) for 
><what do with it.
>
>You will have it before the next meeting as we discussed.
>
>Best Regards 
> Thomas Eklund
><The intent of the words in the draft charter was to say that if someone has 
><a concrete proposal for how to use the IPv6 flow label field, they should 
><present it to the IPng w.g.  It will be easy once that happens to move it 
><to a more appropriate w.g. if it makes sense.
><
><Just because we have the IPv6 flow label bits "available" it is not at all 
><clear we want to do anything with them today.  Our experience with IPv4 is 
><that it would have been very nice to have had some open bits available for 
><future use.  The IP world will change in unexpected ways.  These bits may 
><become very useful 5-10 years from now.  They may be needed for something 
><that has not been thought of today.
><
><It might be much better to encourage experimentation with the flow label 
><bits than to standardize something now.  Lets use them wisely.
><
>< Bob

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++                                                                   
+ Peter Sevenich                                                    +
+ FGAN/FKIE/KOM                                                     +
+ Neuenahrer Str. 20                                                +
+ D-53343 Wachtberg-Werthhoven                                      +
+ Germany                                                           +
+ Phone   +49-228-9435-317                                          +
+ Fax     +49-228-9435-685                                          +
+ e-mail  [email-masked]                                          +    
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 14:12:07 -0500

Peter,

Why do you use the flow label for QOS parameters, rather than
the traffic class octet that was defined for that purpose in
RFC 2474?

   Brian