Tony Hain wrote:
>
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> > Like it or not, there *will* be scenarios
> > where an ISP can't rely on the arriving DSCP value.
>
> Which is my point in calling them random bits. You are
> correct that by maintining a chain of integrity in the
> interpretation, there is no real need for the bits to
> be consistent. The reality is that the only way to
> reconstruct a meaning through the inconsistent SLA
> chain is to go back to the immutable bits.
>
> I have no problem with a strongly worded BCP
> that says all DSCP values should be reset to a set of
> globally agreed values at exit. I understand that does
> not force ISPs to abide, but at least it gives them
> some clue what to do, and the market will sort out the
> ones that comply from the ones that can't deliver the
> expected level of service.
Believe it or not after all I've said, I agree with you
(personally, not speaking for the diffserv WG). But this is
an operational issue where we would need at least some
ISPs on board.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
