Alex Conta wrote:
> > and is finding that it can't get the job done without
> taking over another field
> > with imutable properties.
>
> It can get the job done, but less efficient than in IPv4, and that is
> not because
> work done by the Diffserv WG.
In fact, diffserv can't get the job done across multiple domains in
the presence of ESP. There simply are no visible bits with well-known
semantics to base the decisions on. Allowing the DSCP to be mutable was
explicitly the work of the diffserv WG, and therein lies the reason you
are looking for another set of immutable bits.
> Ad absurdum, if the routers in a domain, do not know, or there is no
> mechanism to know,
> but they can have a use of a mutable flow label, then they would work
> together, and have the egress restore the original value when packets
> leave the domain.
Talk about ambiguity, what is the point of rewriting the flow label
only to restore it later? Even if you wanted to, where is the protocol
that communicates the value from edge to edge?
> That working group does not standardize the IPv6 headers.
They wrote RFC 2474 didn't they. As far as I can tell that means they
are responsible for the content of the TS field.
Tony
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
