📄 chakravorty-bcc-flowlabel-00.txt.htm
字号:
draft-chakravorty-bcc-flowlabel
*Last Version*: draft-chakravorty-bcc-flowlabel-00.txt
<../../all-ids/draft-chakravorty-bcc-flowlabel-00.txt>
</cgi-bin/id2pdf?f1=draft%2dchakravorty%2dbcc%2dflowlabel%2d00%2etxt>
Tracker Entry
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=search_list&search_button=SEARCH&sub_state_id=6&search_filename=draft%2dchakravorty%2dbcc%2dflowlabel%2d00%2etxt>
*Date*: 20-Apr-2005
*Disposition*: expired
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Engineering Task Force J. Bound
Internet-Draft NAv6TF
Expires: October 8, 2005 S. Chakravorty
K. Zhang
The MITRE Corporation
April 9, 2005
Proposal for a New Flow Label Definition
draft-chakravorty-bcc-flowlabel-00 <rfcmarkup?repository=/away/ietf&url=/away/ietf/all-ids/draft-chakravorty-bcc-flowlabel-00>
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
of section 3 of RFC 3667 <../../idref/rfc3667#section-3>. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each
author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of
which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of
which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668 <../../idref/rfc3668>.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 8, 2005.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
The IPv6 header includes a 20-bit Flow Label field. RFC 3697 <../../idref/rfc3697>, "IPv6
Flow Label Specification" [1 <#ref-1>] specified this field and minimum
requirements for using the field. This document first identifies
several issues related to the current Flow Label specification; then
it discusses the limitations of the current specification and the
Bound, et al. Expires October 8, 2005 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Proposal for a New Flow Label Definition April 2005
need for extending the definition to accommodate emerging
applications and protocols; finally, a new Flow Label specification
is proposed that enables more effective usage of this field.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 <#page-3>
2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 <#page-4>
3. Issues Concerning the Current Flow Label . . . . . . . . . . . 5 <#page-5>
4. New Flow Label Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 <#page-7>
4.1 Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 <#page-9>
5. An Emerging Usage for the Flow Label Field . . . . . . . . . . 9 <#page-9>
6. Benefits of Flexible Label . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 <#page-10>
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 <#page-12>
8. Acknowlegements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 <#page-13>
9. Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 <#page-13>
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 <#page-13>
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 <#page-14>
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 15 <#page-15>
Bound, et al. Expires October 8, 2005 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Proposal for a New Flow Label Definition April 2005
1. Introduction
The IPv6 header includes a 20-bit Flow Label field. RFC 3697 <../../idref/rfc3697> [1 <#ref-1>]
specified this field and the minimum requirements required for using
it. This document identifies several issues related to the current
Flow Label specification, it also discusses the limitations of the
current specification and the need for expanding the definition to
accommodate emerging applications and protocols. Additionally, a new
Flow Label definition is proposed that enables more effective use of
this field.
A Flow Label is defined in [1 <#ref-1>] to be 鎍 sequence of packets sent from
a particular source to a particular unicast, anycast, or multicast
destination that the source desires to label as a flow.
⌨️ 快捷键说明
复制代码
Ctrl + C
搜索代码
Ctrl + F
全屏模式
F11
切换主题
Ctrl + Shift + D
显示快捷键
?
增大字号
Ctrl + =
减小字号
Ctrl + -