If NSIS came up with something like that, they would be alarmingly far out of their objectives. That kind of signalling is already fully defined by intserv and diffserv.
Brian Tony Hain wrote: > > Muhammad Jaseemuddin wrote: > > I completely agree with you that unless we have a > > signalling/flow-establishment mechanism we cannot really define the > > flow-label usage in a meaninful way. Perhaps we should wait until new > > NSIS sginalling might come-up with some usage and mechanism for this > > bit-space. > > But it is the responsibility of this group to restrict their domain of > choices to things that make architectural sense. As I said in the last > note to Margaret, the participants in the QoS WGs have consistently > proven they don't understand the value of an end-to-end constant. If we > don't point out that the DSCP is their mutable field to play with so > leave the FL alone, we will end up with 2 random numbers and application > developers will continue to ignore QoS because they have no means to > express their intent that will be valid at all points in the path. > > Tony -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
