RE: Experimental RFC to be: draft-stoica-diffserv-dps-01.txt

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

I checked with my co-Ad for the sub-ip area.
We doubt that IETF would accept such a solution.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ion Stoica [mailto:istoica@cs.berkeley.edu]
> Sent: woensdag 12 februari 2003 0:40
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: Thomas Narten; Jacqueline Hargest; RFC Editor; iesg@ietf.org;
> hzhang@cs.cmu.edu; venkitar@labs.mot.com; jayanth@labs.mot.com
> Subject: Re: Experimental RFC to be: draft-stoica-diffserv-dps-01.txt
> 
> 
> "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" wrote:
> 
> > > > > > 2) use a label between layer 2 and layer 3 (like or
> > > > > > in conjunction with MPLS)
> > > > >
> > > > > But then this is all happening below IP, and doesn't need
> > > > > to include modifying the IP header. Right?
> > >
> > > > That's correct. Would this be ok?
> > >
> > > If it's all invisible to IP, fine with me. You are now no longer
> > > modifying IP.
> > >
> > But now maybe you start to step on MPLS toes?
> > So we may need to check what it means there if you go that route.
> >
> > Bert
> 
> Well then there is always the possibility to define our
> own fixed size label between the IP hader and eventually
> the MPLS header. Would that be acceptable? The reason
> we suggested to use MPLS was just to leverage an existing
> technology.
> 
> Ion
> 
> 
> 
>