----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Elz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Dr. Subrata Goswami" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 10:45 PM Subject: Re: Flow Label > > But that's certainly not true. We don't have to force them, we just > need to tell them what is right. That's all the IETF ever really does. ... > In practice, if actual immutability is required by applications that use the > flow label, then what will "enforce" the immutability is the screams of the > users at the router vendors/operators if they start playing about with the > data.
"tell them what is right" ???? NAT is a bogus example, because addresses are not changed by the carriers (ISPs?) that take in native IPv4 packets on one side of the legacy IPv4 cloud and produce the same packets on the other side of the cloud, based on the address. A person with a PC--NAT configuration, has just buult a super PC with their stack remoted to the NAT appliance. With two PCs and Internet Connection Sharing (ICS), the trio of machines still appear as one aggregate to the legacy IPv4 transport. More of the bits in the IPv4 header can be used, because the NAT appliance can be upgraded easier than their PCs. There are only 20 bytes in the typical IPv4 header and most users do not use them all effectively. The TOS field is a much better example to use, with respect to changing bits that the user does not want changed. The TOS field is 8 bits, and what goes in should come out. Why does the IETF, (described by the ICANN Board, as their "Engineering Division"), think it can come in after the fact and start having carriers change the bits in the user's TOS field ? Is the reason that the IETF does not want users to discover that those 8-bits can be used as two 4-bit fields to expand the addressing of the Internet by adding 15 more layers, flows, etc. ??? Why is it that the IETF's attempts to encourage carriers to change the TOS fields, removing them from the user's usage, are viewed as OK, while NAT is the poster child for all things bad ? Why is it that the IETF (and ICANN) are able to be so selective (and inaccurate) in choosing what they view as breaking the net ?...yet, run around claiming that they know what is right.... Do you use a 2002 prefix ? http://www.dot-biz.com/INFO/Papers/ Jim Fleming 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB http://www.IPv8.info -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
