[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Flow label and Traffic Class [Re: A personal take on WG's priorities..]

Liu Min wrote:
I also want to know if we want to make some suggestion or present some
proposal for IPv6 Flow Label, where should we do it. When we introduce IPv6,
the Flow Label and Traffic Class, and its support for QoS are always one
topic. However, you can not present a QoS mechanism or a network measurement
tool using Flow Label and Traffic Class, because they are still experimental
and subject to change. 

This last sentence is not correct. The Traffic Class is Proposed Standard
(RFC 2474, RFC 2597, RFC 3246, RFC 3289 and others). It is operational in
IPv4, and will operate identically in IPv6.

The Flow Label general rules are Proposed Standard (RFC 3697; also see
RFC 3595). However, we still need to describe specific use cases for the
Flow Label. That is the work that needs to be done, and anyone can
publish an I-D describing a use case, and ask for a BOF.

   Brian


Best Wishes,


Liu Min
Institute of Computing Technology
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Tel: (86-10) 6256 5533-9240 E-mail: liumin@ict.ac.cn



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Sham Chakravorty
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 9:24 PM
To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: A personal take on WG's priorities..

In this regard, would it make sense to add IPv6 Flow Label usage in a
"sub-WG" area such as Enterprise or IPv6 Traffic Modeling?  One would


think

this is one of the  key IPv6 operations areas.  It seems to me we are
focused only in a few, narrowly focused areas of IPv6 operations (as
reflected in the charter).

Sham Chakravorty

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf
Of EricLKlein
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 3:30 AM
To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: A personal take on WG's priorities..


From: "Brian

Quite obviously, it would be outrageous to attempt all this
in one WG. IMHO, we need to either out-source work to other
WGs or create several new WGs with focussed charters.
Especially, we need to separate "getting known stuff
fully operational" from "doing new stuff."

Is it possible to try to set up "sub-WG" areas and recruit more 

specialized

people into these areas?

I am thinking (of the top of my head) of three subgroups:
- Enterprise - would include migration issues, etc.
- ISPs - would handle tunnels, interconnections, etc
- IPv6 Security - would handle NAT-PT, depreciating NAT in IPv6, etc.

Just a thought.
Eric