James Kempf wrote: > > Scott, > > > > The traffic field gives the classification. The flow label > > > could serve as a proxy for the port number and > > > protocol type, > > > > the whole point of class-based QoS is to not have to deal at the > > port and protocol level > > > > Good point, thanx for the clarification. > > Perhaps there is some other way to solve the problem, like > uniform agreement among service providers on > diffserv code points
Explicitly rejected by the ISPs at the beginning of diffserv. That is *exactly* why we need an e2e flow label. > and some kind of authentication on the > traffic classification field, so that the service > provider could authenticate that it hadn't > been changed in transit? As has been said (*everything* has been said several times over the last year), it's too late to change AH. In any case, it doesn't matter: if people change a QOS field to request better service, they will get it and pay for it; no problem there. (Theft of service, or DoS by injecting bogus QOS traffic, is taken care of by admission control at the network edge; nothing we are discussing here changes that.) > But this is perhaps the topic for another > thread and maybe another working group... This is old news to the QOS-related WGs. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
