At 01:09 PM 8/23/00 +0100, Nikki Cranley wrote:
>I have been reading the RFC's relating to IPv6 for some insight to the
>replacement for the ipv4 TOS field. In rfc 2460, there is talk about a
>traffic class field and then in rfc 2474 it talks about a differentiated
>services field. Could anyone tell me which has been "accepted" and if so
>where I could find out more details about this particular field and the
>various priorities etc. as I am interested in trying to use this field
>for some qos mechanisms.
The IPv6 traffic class field is discussed in RFCs 2460, 2473, 2474, 2553,
and internet drafts draft-iab-case-for-ipv6-06.txt and
draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2553bis-00.txt . Section 7 of RFC 2460 makes it clear
that the intended content of the traffic class field is identifical with
the 8 bits containing the TOS byte and the "CU" field described in the
Differentiated Services context.
In addition, RFC 2473 goes on to define the DS Field, making these two
equivalent.
Differentiated Services Field: the IPv4 header TOS octet or the IPv6
Traffic Class octet when interpreted in conformance with the
definition given in this document. Also DS field.
You may find information about Differentiated Services and the DS Field in
2474 Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the
IPv4 and IPv6 Headers. K. Nichols, S. Blake, F. Baker, D. Black.
December 1998. (Format: TXT=50576 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC1455, RFC1349)
(Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)
2475 An Architecture for Differentiated Service. S. Blake, D. Black,
M. Carlson, E. Davies, Z. Wang, W. Weiss. December 1998. (Format:
TXT=94786 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)
2597 Assured Forwarding PHB Group. J. Heinanen, F. Baker, W. Weiss, J.
Wroclawski. June 1999. (Format: TXT=24068 bytes) (Status: PROPOSED
STANDARD)
2598 An Expedited Forwarding PHB. V. Jacobson, K. Nichols, K. Poduri.
June 1999. (Format: TXT=23656 bytes) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)
