touch at ISI.EDU
Mon Oct 16 09:59:36 PDT 2006
Caitlin Bestler wrote:...
> 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).
And it's nice to have room for expansion, i.e., unused bits.
IMO, we're either trying to support routed ethernet or routed IP; if the
former, there's no point in anything other than the TTL field beyond the
destination address. If the latter, then let's put in a full IPv6 header
- with options and run IP on the nodes - i.e., just use IP.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge/attachments/20061016/9cf520f2/signature.bin
More information about the rbridge