Some additional information on the use of the IPv6 flow label with "Diffserv" is in:
draft-conta-diffserv-ipv6-fl-classifier-01.txt submitted to the "diffserv" WG. Alex Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > Margaret, > > For diffserv it's in the MIB (queued up at the RFC > Editor). [...] For diffserv, the flow label is the only field available > as an ISP-independent QOS flag, so (unlike the traffic class) > it needs to survive ISP boundaries. > > Brian > > Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > > > >No. The immutability property is necessary for both of the > > >existing QOS standards, and is necessary for any QOS mechanism > > >that doesn't require an explicit chain of SLAs along the entire > > >path (an unlikely scenario in a dynamically routed internet). > > > > If immutability would make the flow label field useful for > > diffserv and intserv, then I have no objection to it being > > immutable. I think that making intserv/diffserv more useful > > and/or efficient would be a fine use for the flow lable. > > > > Could we get a draft that explains how the flow label would be > > used for diffserv/intserv? One that justifies the need for > > immutability? > > > > Assuming that immutability would actually make the flow > > label more useful for diffserv/intserv, I would accept the > > minor changes to the base IPv6 spec (adding immutability) that > > Tony sent. But, I have not seen any draft that would make this > > single change. > > > > The current draft (in the subject) says a lot more > > than this. First, it recaps parts of the IPv6 Appendix, > > without really making it clear what parts of that Appendix > > it is (and is not) intending to standardize. > > > > The draft also states that a given source/desination/FL > > combination will uniquely identify a flow. This is not > > true -- some knowledge of lifetimes, or some restrictions > > against flow label re-use would be needed to make this > > true. > > > > Anyway, how a flow is identified shouldn't be defined as > > part of the base IPv6 specification. Each signalling > > (or other flow management) mechanism should define how > > flows are identified for its use -- and this may differ > > for different mechanisms. > > > > So -- what I'd like to see: > > > > - A draft that explains how the flow label > > would be used for intserv and/or > > diffserv that explains what properties > > are necessary for that use (i.e. > > length, immutability, values, etc.) > > - A draft that proposes the simple change > > to the IPv6 spec that Tony sent. > > > > Do you think that is reasonable? > > > > Margaret > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > --------------------------------------------------------------------
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
