Brian Carpenter wrote:
> Thomas Narten wrote:
> ...
> > In my view, deciding on the right useage of the bits requires first
> > understanding the problem that needs to be solved.
>
> I think that from the QOS viewpoint, we do understand the problem very well,
> hence the proposal to add a diffserv usage to the existing intserv usage.'
When I think about the most popular usage of protocol/port classification
for QoS (clamping down Napster traffic on university LANs), I don't see
how the new flow label proposal will solve that problem.
Protocol/port classification is only a "requirement" of Diffserv because
we haven't solved the problem of enabling the host to put meaningful
values in the DSCP. I would prefer to try to solve that problem.
> The intserv usage is documented and somewhat implemented, and I don't
> think we can hide behind the weasel words in RFC 2460 any longer.
I think the requirement that the flow label be a PRN could be relaxed:
as long as it is unique per-host it should suffice for Intserv and other
flow-caching usages.
> I don't pretend to understand the routing handle usage (but then,
> I'm of the school of thought that doesn't understand why anyone would
> want MPLS either).
Because some folks want Frame Relay NG, for a variety of reasons, including
multi-protocol support. Which is why trying to fit label switching into
IPv6 is completely besides the point.
Regards,
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Steven L. Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ericsson IP Infrastructure (919)472-9913
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
