Randy Bush writes:
> >> I do not believe that there is currently any way to deal with the
> >> *business* and *operational* issues of asking some remote ISP
> >> to provide QoS service for you in any sort of scalable way
> > Fine, but that's completely orthogonal to whether the flow label is
> > a good idea or not.
>
> we don't care that no one can operationally use it. if it might sell
> one more router, let's kludge up the net a bit more.
Oh, please. There is a very straighforward tweak
to RSVP to support this, and this is an
*anti*-kludge since the original kludge was
overloading the use of L4 information for QoS.
I'm not aware of anybody at my employer salivating
at the revenue potentials for a newly defined flow
label.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
