Subject: RE: [Fwd: draft-conta-ipv6-flow-label-02.txt]

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 11:46:49 +0300

Brian wrote:
> The distinction made in the proposal by the MSB is between a 
> pseudo-random 
> value as defined in RFC 2460 Appendix A (for intserv) and a 
> non-random value 
> (for diffserv). But they are both e2e values, unlike the 
> DSCP. This should
> be documented.
> 

But who need any of the values to be pseudo-random? Intserv would work just
fine if the flow label values would be taken out of the sequence 1,2,3,4,...
Intserv signaling should provide for no problem of re-use after reboot
either, since after a reboot the signaling would be done again before any
use of the flow label.

	Jarno
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Alex Conta <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 18:16:57 -0400

Jarno,

I completely agree! 

Intserv would work fine with ANY other mechanism for selecting flow
label values. It does not have to be PRN.

Intserv seems to work fine with FILTER_SPEC C-type 1, and 2, i.e. based
on "port numbers", which are not PRN.

Furthermore, work on classification mechanisms has made such a progress,
that "hashing", as lookup for flow state information, as suggested in
Appendix A, RFC 2460, is obsolete.  

Even more, IMHO, it is not the business of a IETF standard, to tell what
mechanism to implement for classification, whether is "hashing" or
something else. 

Regards,
Alex