[rbridge] FTag

[Caitlin Bestler]

rbridge-bounces at postel.org wrote:
> Another important field proposed in:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gai-perlman-trill-en
> cap-00.txt 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the Ftag (see section 3).
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any opposition to add this field?
> 
> 
> 
> -- Silvano

Despite the description, this is ultimately a Class of Service
field. Class of Service fields are always useful, the question
is whether they are useful enough. Each extra bit is less useful,
and potentially costs a lot more.

To justify increasing the shim header size I think a scenario
that would specifically require the extra classes would be
useful -- or at least one that exhausts those available without
the extra field.

Philosophically, I take the attitude that the bandwidth belongs
to the customer. I want a justification for each and every bit
I take out of it (although realistically I know that they come
in handy 32-bit packages).