Subject: RE: draft-rajahalme-ipv6-flow-label-00.txt

From: "Hesham Soliman (ERA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 17:26:52 +0100

Margaret,

  > > > Then, why not leave the specification of flow label 
  > semantics and
  > > > rules to this same WG?
  > >
  > >Because the participants in those WGs have consistently proven they
  > >don't understand the concept of an architecturally 
  > consistent immutable
  > >field which the origin can trust.
  > 
  > You believe that the IPv6 group should restrict the use of 
  > the flow label because we can't trust another IETF WG, one
  > that specializes in flow-management mechanisms, to make 
  > appropriate architectural decisions?
  > 

=> Perhaps another way to look at this, is to
come back to basics and say that the flow label
is part of the IPv6 header, therefore it seems
rational to let IPv6 WG define its use. 
I don't see anything wrong with this, no other
fields in the IPv6 header are defined by other
groups.

Hesham
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 12:34:48 -0800

> fields in the IPv6 header are defined by other

This makes the point better than I did, with the exception that I was
only trying to define a boundary condition and let a group focused on
signalling specify content. It is perfectly for the IPv6 WG to say that
the DSCP is a mutable field and the FL is immutable. Both may be
applicable to QoS applications in specific contexts.

Tony

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 14:03:27 +0100

"Hesham Soliman (ERA)" wrote:
...
> fields in the IPv6 header are defined by other

Not so: diffserv defined the traffic class (RFC 2474) and the ECN bits were
not even defined by a WG.

I think that the IPv6 WG needs to define the general rules of the flow label
such as [im]mutablity but the detailed usage may be defined elsewhere.

  Brian

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 09:14:04 -0600

The marketplace ultimately defines the bits. As an example, IPv6
is being defined by the InfiniBand developers. They are putting it
into the silicon for Intel processors. People may want to keep up
with the current specs for IPv6 used in infiniBAND. Only the essential
elements are used.
http://www.infinibandta.org

As for other bits, Linux and FreeBSD tend to be the reference
developments. Windows XP has now added extensions to IPv4 with
the 2002:[IPv4]:0000 IPv8-style addressing. That generates IPv4
packets, which can then be processed by the NAT devices, before
being sent on the Global IPv4 Transport.

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info
IPv16....One Better !!

---

From: Alex Conta <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 11:30:23 -0500

Brian,

Specifying immutability as a universal requirement is too strong.
Whether the field is mutable
or not should be left to the definition of the use of the field (i.e.
the flow setup and flow processing mechanism). 

An acceptable requirement could be that by default the field is
immutable.

Alex