[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [MEXT] implications for draft-tsirtsis-mext-binary-filters-00.txt

marcelo bagnulo braun escribió:
So, basically, the usage of the flow label that i was suggesting has the following implications for draft-tsirtsis-mext-binary-filters-00.txt. Basically, the N number of ponters options would go away (a least for IPv4) 
sigh, for ipv6 i mean


. The rest could be unchanged.
I would probably explain how to use flow bindings using the flow label as described in my previous email in order to achieve higher granularity. 

One more comments about the draft:

  (G)Source Port - Low

     This field identifies the lowest source port number within a range
     of port numbers that will be used in data packets, as seen by the
     home agent.

  (H)Source Port - High

     This field identifies the highest source port number within a
     range of port numbers that will be used in data packets, as seen
     by the home agent.  If a single port is indicated then this field
     SHOULD NOT be included.  If it is included it SHOULD be set to the
     value of the Source Port - Low field.

  (I)Destination Port - Low

     This field identifies the lowest destination port number within a
     range of port numbers that will be used in data packets as seen by
     the home agent.


  (K)Destination Port - High

     This field identifies the highest destination port number within a
     range of port numbers that will be used in data packets as seen by
     the home agent.  If a single port is indicated then this field
     SHOULD NOT be included.  If it is included it SHOULD be set to the
     value of the Dst Port - Low field.
question: all these options can be present only if the (B)Protocol option is present, correct? 


_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext