RE: I-D ACTION:draft-roesler-ipngwg-ipngls-00.txt

On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Rajesh Ramankutty wrote: > Hi, > > The idea of carrying MPLS labels in IPv6 packet destination options is > already patented by us in 3Com. Thanks! Now we have two main reasons not to standardize this. :-) -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounte

RE: I-D ACTION:draft-roesler-ipngwg-ipngls-00.txt

Hi, The idea of carrying MPLS labels in IPv6 packet destination options is already patented by us in 3Com. We also compiled a ietf-draft in June, but delayed to send out. Attached below is the draft. Thanks, -rajesh -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PRO

Re: Higher level question about flow label

In your previous mail you wrote: Unfortunately I think the extension header mechanism is probably too heavy as Francis says, but I want to think a bit longer about that (and re-read kre's last message and some of Jarno's messages). => this is heavy but we can do more with this than

Renumbering and SLAs [was: Portmanteau reply Re: a), b), c), d), or e)]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... > > The SLAs and local policies are database and human driven. > > They need to anticipate > > all ports etc to be used in advance. > > > > Unless the classification would not be based on the transport stuff at all, > but to the proposed diffserv flow label? > > A

Re: Portmanteau reply Re: a), b), c), d), or e)

Just to respond to one detail... [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > All diffserv classifiers require configuration. This would > > mean configuring > > a classifier to look for (say) > > > > Destination IP = Big Customer X > > Source IP = * > > Flow Label = 12345 > > > > The wildcard i

Re: Higher level question about flow label

Unfortunately I think the extension header mechanism is probably too heavy as Francis says, but I want to think a bit longer about that (and re-read kre's last message and some of Jarno's messages). Brian Francis Dupont wrote: > > Tony, I am afraid that you are right. Diffserv seems to need

Re: Higher level question about flow label

Tony, I am afraid that you are right. Diffserv seems to need reclassification at some points in the backbone and 20 bits are not enough to do the job... not speaking of the IPsec issue. According to an old thread the extension header mechanism of IPv6 makes (re)classification at very high speed di

Re: Another idea for the flow label

Brian et al, A lot of mail but lots of it are repeating. The only way my change in vote for "c" will work is if we do this below per Brian. But I presented this case in front of the IETF WG at Minneapolis and folks did not want to go there and Steve presented good counter arguments to doing it.

Re: a), b), c), d), or e)

OK. The case of unencrypted tunnels is covered by RFC 2983, as well as a mention of protocol translation. But it doesn't analyse the case of reclassifying ESP-protected packets. Brian Bob Hinden wrote: > > Yes, that was my intent. Thanks for catching this. > > Bob > > At 11:31 PM 8/29/2001

RE: Portmanteau reply Re: a), b), c), d), or e)

Brian, I totally agree with the notion that for diffserv domains, or multiple ones with SLAs dealing with DSCPs in between, the DSCP field is enough for diffserv aggregation and policing. And I agree with Tony in that a second mutable 'DSCP' field doesn't provide any more additional value, since

Re: Higher level question about flow label

Tony Hain wrote: > > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > > Like it or not, there *will* be scenarios > > where an ISP can't rely on the arriving DSCP value. > > Which is my point in calling them random bits. You are > correct that by maintining a chain of integrity in the > interpretation, there is no

Re: Neighbor Solicitation over IPv6-overIPv4 Tunnel

>On IPv6-over-IPv4 (IPv6-over-IPv6) Tunnels, is it required to >send Neighbor Advertisement Messages in response to >Neighbor Solicitation Messages sent by the other end? >I am a little confused about this. since there's no real link-layer address, and there's only one guy

Re: Portmanteau reply Re: a), b), c), d), or e)

Date:Thu, 30 Aug 2001 15:14:30 -0500 From:Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | I gave myself 24 hours off from this thread to draw breath. Here are | comments on a bunch of points from various people. I have taken longer than th

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-gopinath-host-name-resolution-protocol-ipv6-00.txt

On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As is pointed out in the draft, this is similar to (presented at IETF51): 2.1 Domain Name Auto-Registration for plugged in IPv6 The differences are mentioned along the way in the draft, but I'd like to have certain key points mentioned

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-roesler-ipngwg-ipngls-00.txt

On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I think this is a terrible idea for several reasons. > > 1) MPLS is not a global solution - if it survives at all in the long > term, it will be limited to the core of large networks - and there is > therefore no real reason to drag its complex mecha