Jarno,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Christian,
>
> I still believe that "bits are bits". As you pointed out, there is no
> certainty that a packet to port 80 will carry HTTP. Therefore we should not
> pretend to know. Any classification based on this "make believe" is
> inherently flawed (IHO).
>
> The DSCP (for diffserv) and address + flow label (for intserv) are all that
> is needed for determining the right treatment for the packet.
>
You're forcing the use of a subset of Diffserv on everybody.
One MUST be able to use Diffserv with IPv6, at a not lesser extent than
Intserv with IPv6.
This is even more so, when it does not cost anything, or much, as you
seemed to agree at one point.
> Information theory wise, the port number stuff you propose is either
> redundant or a mistake (the latter in the case of ESP with non-NULL
> encryption).
>
The port number is just a way to represent. Whether you use something
else, or not, it does not really matter. Do not get carried away in the
"other" semantics of the port number.
> The last thing the Internet needs is "content based charging" for transport,
> or "good QoS for supported (read $$$) applications only", both scenarios
> likely if the scheme you propose would be in place.
>
> Then again, I might be wrong :-)
>
> Jarno
>
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
