Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 10:03:24 -0500
From: Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| That's why the "well known value/locally unique value" dichotomy seems
| more hopeful.
But that means that a packet is one or the other, and hence inserv
(which needs a micro-flow ID, not a fixed classifier) or diffserv
(which needs a classifier, but no micro-flow ID), but never both.
How can that possibly allow a packet to flow through a local intserv
domain in my (end-user's net) and then through diffserv in the outside
ISPs, and then back into intserv processing again when it reaches the
destination net.
I don't know how to do that now, but I know I don't want to make it
impossible. And given that we have ESP, that only the source/dest
nodes can decode, all we have left for anyone to look at is what we
put in the IPv6 header, and other headers before ESP. At the minute
the only proposal I have seen is the flow label usage. And that seems
to be being designed to preclude using more than one QoS paradigm (for
one particular packet).
| Not particularly. But I think we do need to find solutions that minimise
| change. As has been said, people are pouring silicon.
Minimise change because people are making hardware today must mean
leaving the flow label the way it is in 2460 (or making that text be
normative instead of an appendix).
Anything else is change. If we can have change one way, and that is
acceptable, slightly different change must be acceptable too,.
kre
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
