Re: draft-nordmark-multi6-sim-00.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

Er, the diffserv field isn't available for that... we use it
for diffserv...

And I wish people would think about routers that will be shipped ten or fifty
years from now. If the solution is sub-optimal for today's hardware, that
should not in itself be a show-stopper.

   Brian

Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> 
> On 26 okt 2003, at 0:36, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> 
> > Regarding your draft draft-nordmark-multi6-sim-00.txt, I'm interested
> > to know if you are considered the implications of using the
> > next header field ?. Let me explain.
> 
> [doing special header processing is expensive in routers with hardware
> IPv6 support]
> 
> Yes, this is a good point. I like the idea of using the 6 bit diffserv
> field for this. This field is modifyable in transit and doesn't impact
> any processing at the receiving end or in routers that don't support
> diffserv or type of service processing.
> 
> There is a slight disadvantage that this field is only 6 bits, but I
> don't think it's necessary to populate all possible combinations of
> service levels and yes/no on the rewriting, so in practice this
> shouldn't have to be a huge problem.