Yes, that was my intent. Thanks for catching this.
Bob
At 11:31 PM 8/29/2001 +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Brian,
>
>Maybe Bob meant just IPv6 tunneled over IPv4, not protocol translation?
>
> Jarno
>
>Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > Bob Hinden wrote:
> > >
> > ..
> > > I think you are going a bit far to suggest that the fate of Diffserv
> > > depends on what the IPv6 w.g. does with the flow label
> > field. I suspect
> > > that Diffserv will live or die based on IPv4 usage. Also,
> > as IPv6 is
> > > deployed much of it will be initially carried over IPv4.
> > Any QoS solution
> > > that is going to be end-to-end will have to deal with a mix
> > of native IPv6
> > > and IPv4/IPv6 headers.
> >
> > Indeed, and since I don't quite see how IPSEC and NAT-PT are going to
> > work together, the need that triggered this discussion (the need to
> > classify ESP packets in the middle of the Internet) really
> > doesn't arise
> > in the case of translated packets. The concern is for a
> > native IPv6 environment.
> >
> > 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
