Subject: Re: Flow Label

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 11:16:00 -0500 (EST)

> No, I don't agree that we can leave the vagueness in 2460. IMNSHO we
> should either accept the rewording we've hammered out (which carefully
> doesn't say anything about QOS) or change it to MBZ. 

I'm fine with the new wording - I'm just not fine with the assumption
that we have any idea what to do with the static info

> If A is a customer of ISP X in some distant country, there might be (and
> I am only saying might be) an SLA in place that says "whenever you get
> a packet from or to A, with 1234 in its flow label, give it such a level
> of service."
> 
> I'm not saying that this is especially likely or plausible, but it
> certainly isn't impossible.

scales well :-)

Scott

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------