Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
> 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).
Not to my knowledge. I fail to see much use for privately defining the
DSCP->PHB mapping for the standardized PHBs, but I also don't see any reason
why someone who wanted that feature would be willing to give it up, and I
don't see any mechanism by which they could be forced.
> > 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.
Why would it be useful?
> > 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'.
I don't get your point. The flow label is in-band. A mutable flow label
is just a 20-bit DSCP. Why would we want that?
Regards,
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Steven L. Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ericsson IP Infrastructure 919-472-9913
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
