Subject: RE: Higher level question about flow label

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 02:36:20 +0300

Tony Hain wrote:
> I agree completely, but that was my point about trust. The 
> operators were telling the diffserv WG that they would 
> refuse to deploy unless they had the ability to ignore what
> the origin said

This far I understand...

> and mark the bits the way they wanted to
> because they couldn't trust the origin not to lie.

...but I fail to understand why should want to do anything else than remark
to best effort if they do not trust the previous operator. Additionally, if
the operators have an SLA, they could police the traffic and shape/remark to
make the traffic to conform to the SLA without caring a bit about what's in
the transport headers.

All sort of un-called-for optimizations in the "middle boxes" are very
likely to cause problems later on.

	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: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 16:58:20 -0700

Jarno Rajahalme wrote:

> to best effort if they do not trust the previous operator. 

Because their customer may be the destination and the 
SLA on that side says treat all protocol X traffic from
Y as high priority. 

> Additionally, if

Based on what? 

> likely to cause problems later on.

No argument... :)

Tony

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 16:00:37 -0500

[email-masked] wrote:
...
> to best effort if they do not trust the previous operator. 

Because the destination is a customer with an SLA that specifies QOS levels
for incoming traffic.

Of course, the ultimate default action is always best effort.

     Brian