given alex's mail and christians I change my vote to "c". but I
would like to hear from Steve Deering at this point which could change my
vote again. but either we should progress soon or I think we heed Thomas
Nartens mail that we may just want to leave all alone for now and the bits
MBZ if not used by existing intserv implementations.
/jim
On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Alex Conta wrote:
> 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]
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
