Brian,
> > I don't think that we have enough experience to pick between a), b), or c)
> > now, and think that something might come up in the future where 28 bits in
> > the IPv6 header might be very useful. This might not have anything to do
> > with QOS.
>
>I think you mean 20 bits. The traffic class octet is fully standardised by
>diffserv and ECN.
Yes, my error. I was not suggesting we change the traffic class field.
>The problem with this is that the text we have today effectively selects
>option b), since it endorses the pseudo-random value. If we do nothing,
>we have effectively chosen the intserv-only usage. That's why I started
>this thread.
I agree. It was good to ask the question.
The point I was trying to make is that while we have now many QOS
standards, we don't have very much deployment experience. As such it is
hard to tell if it is worthwhile to use these 20 bits to optimize QOS
performance.
Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
