Re: [Diffserv] Re: FlowId and FlowIdOrAny

The flow label in IPv6 was 24 bits at one time. So that looks like
a minor obsolescence in the Intserv MIB.

    Brian

Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> 
> >>>>> Wijnen, Bert (Bert) writes:
> 
> Bert> Now... if we do this, then this could still be used by the
> Bert> framework pib.  However, for the diffserv-mib it would mean they
> Bert> must deprecate a current object and create a new one (switching
> Bert> from Unsigned to Integer32 causes a change on the wire!).
> 
> Oops, I missed that part of the picture. So if there is concensus to
> change the range as a bug fix in the DIFFSERV0MIB without introducing
> a new object (which formally the SMIv2 would require to do), then
> using Unsigned32 makes some sense. Note that this will also most
> likely include the definition of a DEFVAL which is in fact the new
> value.  However, if we decided that it is safer to use deprecate the
> filter obejct and introduce a new one, I prefer to use Integer32.
> 
> BTW, this is what I found in the INTEGRATED-SERVICES-MIB:
> 
>     intSrvFlowFlowId OBJECT-TYPE
>         SYNTAX      INTEGER (0..16777215)
>         MAX-ACCESS  read-only
>         STATUS      current
>         DESCRIPTION
>            "The flow ID that  this  sender  is  using,  if
>            this  is  an IPv6 session."
>        ::= { intSrvFlowEntry 11 }
> 
> Note that this range is [0..2^24-1] while the other definitions under
> discussion use a range of [0..2^20-1]. Note that RFC 2460 says:
> 
> :    Flow Label           20-bit flow label.  See section 6.
> 
> /js
> 
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder    <http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/>
_______________________________________________
diffserv mailing list
diffserv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/maillist.html