Tony,
...
> At this point what we can't afford is redefining a field simply
> because the diffserv WG refused to create a set of end-to-end
> consistent bits.
Please don't use this kind of language. As I just said on the other
thread, diffserv reached consensus (in 1998) on a completely self-
consistent model meeting the key requirements stated by ISPs.
> It is no surprise that people are finding it
> difficult to build hardware that will make consistent decisions
> when all the bits in the header are random.
What on earth do you mean? The DSCP to PHB mapping is configured,
but there is nothing random involved. If you actually study the
diffserv MIB, you will discover just how structured it is. (You
won't actually find any PHBs in the MIB, since PHBs are just
composed from queues and schedulers).
> Since the diffserv
> mechanism is the one that needs a consistent set of bits for
> hardware acceleration,
No, it needs to examine header semantics at administrative domain
boundaries. That might or might not be a hardware based process,
depending on technology. But the core routers don't need to
examine header semantics.
> that WG should have provided them. Instead
> the DSCP is effectively a random set of bits with no global
> context,
Again, there is nothing random about them, and the mapping is
configured via the MIB or some such mechanism.
> and we are being asked to redefine another set of bits
> to provide the necessary end-to-end consistency since the
> diffserv WG refuses to.
Again, it isn't a question of "refuses". See above.
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
