Re: I-D ACTION:draft-nordmark-multi6-noid-02.txt

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> Maybe it's too close to San Diego for e-mail to make sense to me, but
> ...
> 
> From: "Brian E Carpenter" <[email protected]>
> To: "Multi6" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 2:15 AM
> Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-nordmark-multi6-noid-02.txt
> 
> 
>>3. I am also uncomfortable about "the bit." The whole of section 6
> 
> is, well,
> 
>>a bit kludgy. The only clean solution IMHO is a shim header, which
> 
> knocks
> 
>>8 bytes off the user's MTU. In the catgeory of possible
> 
> alternatives, we could
> 
>>in theory add
>>  - encode a couple of bits in the flow label
>>  - get back the ECN bits
> 
> 
> Huh? Does this mean (1) we bag ECN in general, (2) we bag ECN for
> multihoming and hope no one gets confused about interpreting
> overloaded bits, or (3) we're totally confusing Spencer?

I was being drastic: we persuade the IESG that ECN is a massive
failure and have them reallocate the bits. (I'm not advocating
this solution; I simply think we should list all options.)

> The rest of Brian's note made sense to me

This is very reassuring :-)

    Brian