In your previous mail you wrote:
> => so you give up the appendix A of draft-conta-ipv6-flow-label-02.txt?
> The diffserv flow label in proposition c) will be an extension of
> the DS field with same kind of properties?
Sure, it was included as FYI.
=> so the next version of the draft should be more accurate about
the draw backs of appendix A proposals (introduction talks about
positive and negative aspects but there is nothing/not enough thing
about negative aspects).
> What Alex and I came here to discuss was doing better than
> that with IPv6.
>
> => I understand but I shan't support the c) option until the 5-tuple
> re-classifier monster is killed.
That is not the business of this WG and irrelevant to the issue of
using the flow label.
=> so I suggest in a previous mail to move this discussion to another list.
It's also running code and I think out of the hands of the IETF and
in the hands of the market to decide.
=> I disagree because I am not so trusting in the wisdom of the market.
Current diffserv specs are too neutral about misuses of 5F re-classifiers so:
- IPsec users can get an unfair penalty
- IPv6 users can get an unfair penalty
- core router engineers have to find a way to implement 5F classification
at very high speed (obviously a very hard task :-)
If we can not stop stupidity we should document it ASAP, perhaps if we did
that for NATs *in time* today the situation would be better.
Regards
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
