Contrary to what I said in the meeting 5 minutes ago, I did look at this issue, and agreed with cmh's recommendation. Nobody on the diffserv list responded.
Brian -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Issue #1 [Re: IPv6 w.g. Last Call on "IP Forwarding Table MIB" (1/2)] Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:37:26 +0100 From: Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Organization: IBM To: "C. M. Heard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "C. M. Heard" wrote: ... > Synopsis: I question the appropriateness of using the DSCP field > to represent routing policy, and I recommend replacing the > inetCidrRouteDscp object with a more generic inetCidrRoutePolicy > object. Personally, I agree. This possible usage of the DSCP is too speculative to bless it in a MIB. Writing as diffserv co-chair, your blind copy to the diffserv list was filtered as possible spam, but I have released from limbo so we should see if there is any reaction from that community. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
