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
>
> i anxiously await a description the tweak which will provide "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."
Different problem. No cigar. This bait and switch
reminds me of the same sort of tactics of those
who endlessly pointed out that ip6 didn't solve
the route explosion problem. As in, duh.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
