Robert Elz wrote:
...
> The problem comes because there's no guarantee which of intserv or
> diffserv will be applicable to any particular network. It is entirely
> possible that both will occur between the two end points of any
> connection.
There are a couple of models for doing that in the ISSLL WG. Maybe
they should be having this argument. From a quick glance, none
of those documents refer to the flow label.
> What's more, aside from being extra work for the user
> (the user's system) that shouldn't matter - the user should be able
> to send packets with diffserv classifiers in it, after having requested
> an intserv path from the intermediate systems that support it.
>
> That's why taking the flow label, and saying "this packet is for intserv"
> or "this packet is for diffserv" is wrong - because the packet might need
> to be for both.
That's why the "well known value/locally unique value" dichotomy seems
more hopeful.
...
> Just at the minute it seems to be (as an outsider) as if people on both
> sides of this debate have become entrenched in their position, and rather
> that looking for a solution that can work, are instead simply set on
> making the solution that they originally conceived into the winner.
Not particularly. But I think we do need to find solutions that minimise
change. As has been said, people are pouring silicon.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
