With Intserv-like networks, you don't ever need to
reveal any L4+ headers. This is also true with
diffserv networks if you don't require
(re)classification, which is a perfectly
reasonable way to design a diffserv network.
This entire controversy surrounds whether diffserv
networks which have interior routers do the
classification is legitimate. Considering that it
breaks a perfectly reasonable user desire --
privacy -- I'd say that's a pretty good reason
to question the base premise.
Mike
Alex Conta writes:
>
>
> Francis Dupont wrote:
> >
> > Alex, perhaps I was unfair about the c) option.
>
> You were Francis.
>
> > I understood that you'd like to replace the MF classifier on
> > the 5/6 tuple (adresses, DS field, protocol, ports) which I'll call
> > the 5F classifier by a simpler MF classifier with the flow label
> > in place of protocol and ports. This cancels the efficiency issue
> > of the extension header chain of IPv6.
> >
> > My first concern is the 5F reclassification is a bad idea because
> > an ACL-like classifier will never give what I want as an user.
> > This is too rigid, not real-time, ...
> >
>
> It may not give you what you want as a user, but it would give me
> what "I" (read my customers) want as user(s).
>
> Remember, having a Intserv, and Diffserv use of the flow label gives
> the user the option, and that is a good thing.
>
> > The second concern is with ESP: the 5F classifier wants to look at
> > bits I want to hide. No conciliation is possible, IPsec people
> > (like Michael) will *never* accept to reveal transport layer or
> > payload details for a 5F classifier. [...]
> >
> > Francis
>
> Let's put religion aside.
>
> Conceptually, with IP QoS, infrastructure devices delivering packets to
> destination, are processing forwarding and QoS information.
>
> As traffic between two end-nodes may have distinct QoS requirements, it
> is obvious that the information to be given to an infrastructure device
> must provide the differentiation of the traffic between the two
> end-nodes.
> That information, by definition, is in some relationship with the
> multiplexing
> of the communication between the two end-nodes, which is being realized
> through the
> transport (host-to-host) header information. At an extreme, that
> information is the
> transport protocol and source and destination ports, themselves.
>
> Since, with IP QoS, the QoS information is in the same class, relative
> to privacy,
> with the forwarding information, if one needs to apply full privacy to
> QoS information,
> it will apply the same criteria as for forwarding information: use
> tunnel ESP.
>
> Regards,
> Alex
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
