OK. The case of unencrypted tunnels is covered by RFC 2983, as well as
a mention of protocol translation. But it doesn't analyse the case
of reclassifying ESP-protected packets.
Brian
Bob Hinden wrote:
>
> 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
