Subject: [MEXT] implications for draft-tsirtsis-mext-binary-filters-00.txt

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 21:28:52 +0200

So, basically, the usage of the flow label that i was suggesting has the 
following implications for draft-tsirtsis-mext-binary-filters-00.txt.
Basically, the N number of ponters options would go away (a least for 
IPv4). The rest could be unchanged.
I would probably explain how to use flow bindings using the flow label 
as described in my previous email in order to achieve higher granularity.

One more comments about the draft:

   (G)Source Port - Low

      This field identifies the lowest source port number within a range
      of port numbers that will be used in data packets, as seen by the
      home agent.

   (H)Source Port - High

      This field identifies the highest source port number within a
      range of port numbers that will be used in data packets, as seen
      by the home agent.  If a single port is indicated then this field
      SHOULD NOT be included.  If it is included it SHOULD be set to the
      value of the Source Port - Low field.

   (I)Destination Port - Low

      This field identifies the lowest destination port number within a
      range of port numbers that will be used in data packets as seen by
      the home agent.

   (K)Destination Port - High

      This field identifies the highest destination port number within a
      range of port numbers that will be used in data packets as seen by
      the home agent.  If a single port is indicated then this field
      SHOULD NOT be included.  If it is included it SHOULD be set to the
      value of the Dst Port - Low field.

question: all these options can be present only if the (B)Protocol 
option is present, correct?

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 21:41:06 +0200

marcelo bagnulo braun escribió:
> So, basically, the usage of the flow label that i was suggesting has 
> the following implications for draft-tsirtsis-mext-binary-filters-00.txt.
> IPv4)
sigh, for ipv6 i mean

> . The rest could be unchanged.
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>

---

From: Hesham Soliman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 11:05:02 +1000

> option is present, correct?

=> I don't see why. You should be able to specify port that span transport
protocols if you want. Of course, in practice all the well-known ports are
allocated to both TCP and UDP anyway.

Hesham