Scott Bradner writes:
> Brian sez:
> > In the intserv case, it is no different. In the diffserv case, the presumption
> > is that we would use IANA-assigned, globally meaningful values, that are
> > specific to a desired QOS treatment rather than to any individual traffic flow.
> > The implementation details (including the DSCP value and router configurations)
> > may differ from ISP to ISP, but the flow label bits convey end to end
> > semantics. This is more powerful than port numbers whose semantics are poor at
> > best for QOS purposes, and it works when the port numbers are invisible.
>
>
> this still begs the question
> why do folk think that ISPs half way around the world would find it useful
> to know what the sending computer wanted for QoS?
>
> at least in the case of difserv if an ISP gets a DSCP there is some
> implied authorization by the previous network (ISP or enterprise) - how
> does authorization happen in the case of imutable globally meaningful
> values?
>
> I see no reason to believe that such a field will be any use whatsoever
> in providing QoS in the Internet - and it is redundant in an enterprise
> because the enterprise can decide to not change the DSCP field
>
> unless there is some hint of a way for this change to serve any useful
> purpose we should just leave things as they are
Since you can make the identical argument about
5-tuple based classification, all you're saying
here is that you don't believe in Intserv/RSVP.
Fine. There's a lot of people who disagree. With
the current wording, a new flow spec for RSVP
can be created ala RFC 2207 and we can all
agree to disagree.
Mike
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
