[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself
On 5-mei-2005, at 14:53, Francis Dupont wrote:
Francis, I get a headache from your weird quoting style.
I also don't get what the problem is. It's like we're talking about
two different things.
I DON'T CARE WHAT A FLOW IS.
The only thing that's important is that everything with the same flow
label has the same ULIDs and that there aren't overlapping flow
labels between two hosts.
These requirements are easy to meet without undue inconvience for
other flow label use.
The receiver doesn't get any say in the flow label value. Sure, it
would be nice if the receiver could tell the sender which flow label
it should use, but that's simply not implementable in a reasonable
way, too bad, move on.
Anyway, in a post I don't think anybody read I suggested that we
should use a sort of demux negotation. Since demux can happen on:
- unique locator sets
- transport protocol information (port numbers)
- flow label
- demux option in the packet
it should be non-fatal if one or more of the first three mechanims
aren't supported by either the sender or the receiver since they can
always fall back on another mechanism. So even if the flow label is
used in a manner that is incompatible with the shim flow label use
that wouldn't be a problem, the sender should just fall back on using
the demux option if the locator sets aren't unique and port number
demux can't be done.