Re: [Fwd: draft-conta-ipv6-flow-label-02.txt]

[Michael Thomas]

Brian E Carpenter writes:
 > Excellent summary. We originally chose a 6 bit diffserv field partly because
 > it was available in both IPv4 and IPv6, and partly because it allows for
 > very efficient classification in *core* routers, with the more demanding
 > multi-field classification being left to border routers. 
 > 
 > The question before the house (in the end that means both ipng and diffserv)
 > is whether the added complexity of adding the flow label to the diffserv
 > model is justified by the gain in expressiveness. It doesn't do anything
 > for the trust model.

   I haven't heard about any imminent shortage of DSCP's.
   Indeed, it seems that there's only a small handful
   (2-6) that I've ever heard people contemplating. Maybe
   I just don't travel in the right circles...

          Mike
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------