Brian, Bob,
I respect very much the IPv6 WG, the WG's chairs, and the participants
to the thread that Brian
started, in an effort to move in the right direction.
But in my opinion -- perhaps as usual, less politically correct than
Brian -- I do not think that the IPv6 WG has a choice, that we have a
choice.
IPv6 is not X's, or Y's IP. It is IETF's IPv6, in fact, everybody's
IPv6.
This puts a tremendous responsibility, but also demands a certain code
of conduct, or direction of thinking for all of us. If that is not
captured in the charter, I think it should.
The IPv6 WG is not a preferential club, or an exclusivist group. The
IPv6 WG is not to tell the IETF what standard is good and what standard
is bad. While the IPv6 WG develops IPv6, IT MUST ENSURE that IPv6 works
with, and it supports the other IETF standards.
Intserv, and RSVP completed work (WGs closed). Diffserv started is well
on its way. They are TWO IETF models for IP QoS, and are both on the
IETF standards track.
So, in terms of mechanisms to be standardized for the IPv6 flow label,
it is no question in my mind that right now WE MUST DO:
c) - standardization of the flow label for IP QoS, e.g. Intserv, and
Diffserv.
The choice is the user's, e.g. end users and network providers, to use
or not, one (Intserv), the other (Diffserv), or both, when deploying
IPv6.
Furthermore, personally, I think that if the IPv6 flow label would have
been done right, we would not have MPLS, and IPv6 would have given even
more reasons to be adopted/deployed.
At this point is too late, if for no other reason than just that MPLS is
a IETF standard on its way, and its own right, and that with the current
IPv6 header format, the flow label cannot match the efficiency of all
MPLS's features anyway.
As I think that no standard should be excluded, I think that IPv6 WG
should do its best, to make IPv6 work well, friendly with MPLS. Which is
in a way [a subset of a)]+c).
Regards,
Alex
P.S. Please note that MPLS labels are forwarding handles, that can also
include a QoS hint
(Intserv, or Diffserv).
Bob Hinden wrote:
>
> Brian,
>
> At 08:45 AM 8/16/2001 -0500, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >I think the WG needs to decide once and for all whether the flow label is
> > a) a CATNIP or MPLS-like routing handle
> >or b) a QOS hint for intserv only
> >or c) a QOS hint for intserv and diffserv
> >or d) a waste of bits
>
> I would like to suggest another choice:
>
> e) a set of bits we hold in reserve for the future
>
> 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.
>
> 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]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
