Steve Blake wrote:
> RFC2475 was built on the assumption of bilateral agreements between
> peering providers, because that was the only model that had a hope
> of being deployed.
Has this changed? Would there be hope for non-locally-mappable DSCP
deployment NOW? I've understood the standardized values already exist (the
PHB definition recommended DSCP values).
> The Diffserv flow-label proposal is trying to
> invent an end-to-end, in-band QoS "signaling" mechanism to operate in
> parallel with the hop-by-hop DSCP "signaling".
I can see this to be useful, IF DSCP cannot be made non-mappable, and the
proposed flow label usage would be mutable.
> The only additional
> in-band information that would be remotely useful for Diffserv would
> be a credit card account number.
Assuming that the flow label usage would be immutable. The first operator
that doesn't see the transitive out-of-band credit card should re-mark the
flow label to '00000'.
Jarno
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
