[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
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
I did read that message.
My concerns with this suggestion are:
1. Having multiple mechanisms plus some fallback rules seems very
complex. We should figure out how to make a single mechanism work.
2. Peeking at the transport information is a no-no in my mind. We want
this to be transport independent.