Subject: RE: Higher level question about flow label

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 23:11:36 +0300

Steve Blake wrote:
> RFC2475 was built on the assumption of bilateral agreements between
> peering providers, because that was the only model that had a hope
> of being deployed.

Has this changed? Would there be hope for non-locally-mappable DSCP
deployment NOW? I've understood the standardized values already exist (the
PHB definition recommended DSCP values).

> The Diffserv flow-label proposal is trying to
> invent an end-to-end, in-band QoS "signaling" mechanism to operate in
> parallel with the hop-by-hop DSCP "signaling".

I can see this to be useful, IF DSCP cannot be made non-mappable, and the
proposed flow label usage would be mutable.

> The only additional
> in-band information that would be remotely useful for Diffserv would 
> be a credit card account number.

Assuming that the flow label usage would be immutable. The first operator
that doesn't see the transitive out-of-band credit card should re-mark the
flow label to '00000'.

	Jarno
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Steve Blake <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 17:33:50 -0400

> PHB definition recommended DSCP values).

Not to my knowledge.  I fail to see much use for privately defining the
DSCP->PHB mapping for the standardized PHBs, but I also don't see any reason
why someone who wanted that feature would be willing to give it up, and I
don't see any mechanism by which they could be forced.

> proposed flow label usage would be mutable.

Why would it be useful?

> that doesn't see the transitive out-of-band credit card should re-mark the

I don't get your point.  The flow label is in-band.  A mutable flow label
is just a 20-bit DSCP.  Why would we want that?

Regards,

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Steven L. Blake               <[email-masked]>
Ericsson IP Infrastructure                   919-472-9913

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 15:42:35 -0500

Jarno, this is recursing the DSCP model up to the (proposed)
flow label. I don't think it's necessary. On this point I
am in agreement with Tony.

   Brian