Francis,
Francis Dupont wrote:
>
> In your previous mail you wrote:
>
> - figure out a way to make the other option in Alex's draft:
>
> 0 1
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> |0| Server Port Number| H-to-H protocol|
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
> suitable for use by policy-driven diffserv classifiers.
>
> => can you explain why it is not enough to use the SPI in place of
> higher layer selectors?
The SPI doesn't have the semantics. A QOS classifier needs to *know*
the port and protocol numbers; that's how it takes its decisions.
For example you might put traffic with protocol number 30 in a
different class from traffic with protocol number 41.
Alex's idea of using "server port number" is in fact
interesting, since it would allow you to classify traffic
on its original well-known port #, without having to rely
on dynamically assigned port #s for classification.
I'm beginning to think he may be right. But I suggest
allocating 11 bits to the port number and 8 to the
protocol number, so that we can cover at least
some of the registered ports (up to 2047). But the flow
label isn't long enough for everything we need.
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
